Shelf.. 


PRINCETON,    N.    J.  ^> 

Division vD.  !5. .  Srw5  to  '^'•■ 

•^e^twn r...r^..vV.'S:.(o 

Mumh«r u  .i.,X-M... 


HISTORY 

OF 

THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES 

OF    THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT 


EDUARD  (WILHELM  EU GEN)  REUS S 

PROFESSOR    ORDINARIUS    IN    THE    EVANGELICAL    THEOLOGICAL    FACULTY    OF    THE 
EMPEROR  WILLIAM'S  UNIVERSITY  IN  STRASSBURG,  GERMANY 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  FIFTH  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 
GERMAN  EDITION,    WITH  NUMEROUS  BIBLIO- 
GRAPHICAL ADDITIONS 


EDWARD  L.  HOUGHTON,  A.  M. 

IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOL.  II. 


BOSTON 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND   COMPANY 

New  York:  11  East  Seventeenth  Street 
1884 


Copyright,  1884, 
By  EDWARD  L.  UOUGIITON. 

All  rights  reserved. 


The  Riverside  Press,  Cambridge  : 
Electrotyped  and  Printed  by  H.  0.  Houghton  &  Co. 


BOOK  SECOND. 

HISTORY    OF   THE    COLLECTION  OF    THE    SACRED    SCRIP- 
TURES OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

281.  The  Apostles  and  the  first  Christians  in  general  con- 
tinued to  use  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  for  the  purpose 
of  religious  instruction.  They  did  this  not  merely  from  cus- 
tom, and  so  long  as  they  had  not  formally  separated  themselves 
from  the  synagogue,  but  also  because  they  found  in  these 
books  the  authentic  confirmation  of  the  faith  which  the  dis- 
courses, miracles,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  had  awakened  and 
nourished  in  them.  For  precisely  the  same  reason  they  came 
to  be  known  and  used  from  the  very  first  among  the  Gentile 
Christians,  since  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles  was  based 
chiefly  upon  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  and  upon  the 
close  and  higher  connection  between  the  earlier  revelations 
and  the  things  which  had  come  to  pass  in  these  last  days. 

On  this  whole  book  cf.  my  more  detailed  treatise  :  Histoire  du  Canon  des 
S.  Ecritures  dans  VEglise  chrc'tienne  (Nouvelle  Revue,  Vols.  VI.,  IX.,  X.,  18G0 
fe.),  also  separately,  Str.  (1863),  2d  ed.  1864. 

With  the  above  cf.  §  30.  Examples  iu  proof  from  the  Acts,  all  the  Gos- 
pels, the  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  to  the  Hebrews,  Romans,  Corinthians, 
Galatians,  Ephesians,  and  the  Apocalypse  ;  also  from  Clement,  Barnabas,  and 
later  writers.  No  difference  of  method  of  preaching  in  this  respect  can  be 
shown,  corresponding  either  with  the  different  theological  tendencies  in  the 
Apostolic  Chnrch  or  with  the  different  elements  of  the  chnrches.  Even  the 
Pauline  school,  notwithstanding  its  other  declarations  respecting  the  validity 
of  the  Law,  was  obliged  to  rest  upon  the  Old  Testament,  see  especially  Gal. 
iii.  19  ff.  ;  this  it  could  do  entirely  without  danger  to  its  fundamental  prin- 
ciples, see  §  505.     Cf .  also  the  expositors  on  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 

Catalogues  of  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  (triva^ 
fiapTvpiwv),  sometimes  also  of  the  mere  allusions,  are  found  in  many  of  the 
older  editions  of  the  text  (e.  ^r.  iu  the  larger  editions  of  Stephens  and  most 
of  the  Elzevirs,  §  404  f.)  and  versions,  and  still  in  the  N.  7'.  of  Knapp  and 
others  ;  also,  separately,  complete,  in  E.  Leigh,  Critica  s.  N.  T.,  Index  III.; 
L.  D.  Cramer,  Bibliologia  N.  T.  (L.  1819  ff.,4°),  Pts.  II.-IV.  ;  Bialloblotzky, 
De  legis  mosaicce  abrogatione  (Gott.  1824,  4°),  p.  162  ff.  ;  Doepke,  Hermeneu- 
tik  der  neutest.  Schriftsteller  (L.  1829,  8°),  pp.  189-288  ;  R.  Stier's  Bibl.  Theo- 
logie,  p.  452  ff.  ;  E.  Haupt,  Die  Citate  in  den  Evv.,  Colb.  1871.  [Tables  of 
these  quotations,  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  N.  T.  passages,  in  the  Intro- 
troductions  of  Home  and  Davidson.     A  fuller  table,  embracing  even  verbal 


288  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

allusions,  arranged  in  the  contrary  order,  but  with  reverse  index,  published 
separately,  by  Gough,  1855,  C.  H.  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  N.  T.,  N.  Y.  1884.] 
That  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  had,  complete,  the  same  collection  of  canon- 
ical writings  of  the  Old  Testament  which  we  to-day  possess  as  such,  is  pos- 
sible and  probable,  but  in  our  complete  ignorance  of  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  Canon  cannot  be  made  an  absolute  certainty  (not  even  on  the 
ground  of  Mt.  xxiii.  35  ;  Lk.  xxiv.  44;  cf.  C.  Iken,  jDe  lege,  prophelis,  et 
psalmis,  Diss.,  I.  419  ;  R.  Teller,  Cation  V.  T.  divinus  et  perfectus  ex  Luc. 
xxiv.  ^,  1747),  and  is  rather  a  postulate  of  the  theological  system  ;  see  De 
Gasparin,  Les  ecoles  du  doute  (§  348),  p.  256  ff.  At  all  events,  no  theory  of 
the  Old  Testament  Canon  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  Apostles  according  to 
which  everything  (now)  found  in  the  collection  was  theologically  useful  for 
the  Gospel,  and  everythmg  not  found  therein  useless  for  the  Church.  Cf .  on 
the  former  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  etc.,  on  the  latter,  §§  169,  283, 
293.  But  this  very  hesitation  in  the  selection  of  material  is  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent in  conflict  with  the  conception  of  inspiration  already  current  at  that 
time,  which  alone  gives  the  key  to  the  otherwise  inexplicable  apostolic  ex- 
egesis (§  503  f.),  and  which  properly  should  have  led  to  the  strictest  separa- 
tion of  the  canonical  from  the  uncanonical.  This  contradiction  has  never 
been  fully  overcome  by  the  Church  and  its  theology. 

282.  Among  the  Jewish  people  acquaintance  with  the  sa- 
cred writings  was  extended  and  kept  up  by  means  of  regular 
public  readings  in  the  synagogues.  It  is  highly  probable  that 
the  Christians  also  maintained  this  custom  in  their  assemblies, 
and  doubtless  in  the  established  way.  Yet  we  no  longer  know 
this  certainly.  In  view  of  the  scanty  development  of  the 
forms  of  church  life  in  the  apostolic  period,  and  the  mostly 
practical,  edificatory  character  of  the  writings  which  are  the 
only  sources  for  this  division  of  the  history,  the  lack  of  more 
definite  knowledge  need  not  surprise  us. 

Synagogue  readings  in  the  time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  ;  from  the 
Law,  Acts  XV.  21,  2  Cor.  iii.  15  ;  from  the  prophets,  Lk.  iv.  16,  Acts  xiii. 
27  ;  from  both  divisions  one  after  the  other.  Acts  xiii.  15  ;  see  the  expositors 
on  these  passages.  The  relation  of  these  readings  to  the  present  division  of 
the  Old  Testament  into  Parasha  and  Haphtara  is  unknown.  Perhaps  also 
the  standing  expression  6  v6ixos  koi  ol  TrpocpyjTat,  Mt.  v.  17,  and  frequently,  bears 
witness  to  this  custom,  which  certainly  agrees  with  the  known  division  of 
the  Hebrew  books.  For  the  details  of  the  earlier  history  of  these  readings 
see  Zunz,  Gottesdienstl.  Voi-trdge  der  Juden  (B.  1832),  Introduction.  Jewish 
tradition  (cf.  Joseph.,  Cont.  Apian.,  ii.  17)  and  uncritical  Christendom  refer 
them  to  Moses  (Dent,  xxxi.),  but  they  are  of  post-exilic  origin,  like  the  syn- 
agogue itself,  and  have  nothing  to  do  even  with  the  event  related  in  2  K. 
xxii.     Cf .  Nell.  viii.  and  my  Hist,  de  la  Theol.  Chre't.,  I.  chs.  ii.,  iii. 

Proper  public  readings  in  Christian  Churches  are  only  mentioned  in  1 
Tim.  iv.  13.  Yet,  in  view  of  the  probably  very  limited  private  reading,  the 
frequent  quotations  (§  281)  presuppose  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures  by 
means  of  public  reading  (cf.  Acts  viii.  28  ;  XAoi.  11  ;  Gal.  iv.  21,  etc.).  It 
is  idle,  however,  to  look  for  proof  of  this  in  Acts  ii.  47,  Eph.  v.  19,  Col.  iii.  16. 
The  Trpo(p^Tdi  of  the  Apostolic  Church  were  certainly  not  expounders  of  the 
Scriptures  in  the  proper  sense  (Schmidt,  Einl.,  p.  4).  With  some  certainty, 
however,  the  earlier  custom  may  be  inferred  from  the  later  (Justin,  Apol. 
I.,  67,  and  later  Church  Fathers,  also  many  lectionaries,  §  384).  Cf.  Rhein- 
wald,  ArchcioL,  p.  274  and  supplement ;  Augusti,  Handb.  der  chr.  Archdol., 


PUBLIC  READINGS  IN  THE   SYNAGOGUE.  289 

II.  185  £f.  ;  Rettig,  De  prcelectionibus  in  eccl.  chr.,  in  the  Ephemer.  Giss.,  III. 
31  ;  Aloys  Sandbiichler,  Lasen  die  ersten  Chr.  die  h.  Schr.  ?  Salzb.  1784. 

283.  With  respect  to  the  language,  also,  in  which  these 
readings  from  the  Old  Testament  must  have  been,  there  was 
probably  no  difference  between  Christians  and  Jews  in  partic- 
ular localities.  To  most  the  sacred  writings  were  accessible 
and  intelligible  only  in  the  Greek  translation.  Through  this 
they  gradually  became  acquainted  with  a  greater  number  of 
books  than  Palestinian  custom  had  fixed  upon  for  church  use. 
But  how  early  or  late  these  other  books  began  to  be  used  for 
edification  in  Christian  churches  cannot  be  ascertained,  —  all 
the  less  since  we  have  no  sufficient  knowledge  even  of  their 
authority  among  the  Hellenistic  Jews.  It  is  only  certain  that 
the  Apostles  and  their  immediate  followers,  wherever  it  was 
necessary  to  adduce  a  scriptural  proof,  confined  themselves  en- 
tirely to  the  Hebrew  canon. 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  books  belonging  to  the  sacred  collection,  it 
appears  certain  that  there  was  no  special  (more  extensive)  Alexandrian 
Canon  (see  Oehler,  in  Herzog's  Eiicykl.,  VII.  255)  ;  but  there  doubtless  was 
a  difference  with  respect  to  arrangement  and  the  integrity  of  certain  books 
(Daniel,  Ezra,  Esther,  Jeremiah).  Precisely  in  respect  to  these  latter  all 
certain  knowledge  is  lacking  for  the  earlier  period. 

Uncertam  traces  of  acquauitance  with  the  Apocrypha  on  the  part  of  the 
Apostles  :  Olearius,  In  Matth.,  p.  68  ff.  ;  C.  Sonntag,  De  allegatis  apocr.  in 
evv.,  Altd.  1716  ;  Eichhorn,  Einl.  in  die  Apocryphen  (1795),  passim ;  Mou- 
linie,  Notice  sur  les  livres  apocr.  du  V.  T.  (Gen.  1828),  passim;  E.  Reuss, 
De  II.  V.  T.  apocryphis  perperam  plebi  negatis  (Arg.  1829),  p.  13  ;  Dopke, 
I.  c,  p.  206  ;  Cramer,  I.  c,  II.  18  ;  III.  5  ;  cf.  R.  Stier,  Bibl.  Dogmatik,  p. 
519  ;  idem,  Ueher  das  Verhdltniss  der  Apocryphen  zur  h.  S.  (Evang.  Kirchen- 
zeitung,  1828,  No.  60)  ;  but  especially  in  the  work  cited  under  §  349  ;  Bleek, 
in  the  Studien,  1853,  II.  335  ff.  ;  Storr,  In  ep.  Jacohi  (1783),  passim.  There 
is  in  the  New  Testament  absolutely  no  proper  quotation  from  them.  And 
resemblances  (e.  g.,  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon)  can  be  easily  explained  from  the  wide  prevalence  of  the  ideas. 
But  in  Clement,  1  Cor.  Iv.,  there  is  an  express  appeal  to  Judith  (ch.  xxvii. 
Wisdom  of  Solomon?).  A  use  of  the  history  is  obvious  from  Hebr.  xi.  34 
ff.  For  the  later  history  of  the  Greek  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  see 
§§317,  319,  324. 

Did  the  Apostles  generally  quote  from  the  Hebrew  text  or  from  the 
Septuagint  ?  The  question  is  differently  answered  and  in  almost  all  mod- 
ern commentaries,  under  the  particular  passages.  Most  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed by  Credner,  Beitrdge,  Pt.  II.  ;  Bleek,  Brief  an  die  Hehrder,  I.  338- 
375  ;  cf.  Dopke,  I.  c,  p.  208  ff.  ;  J.  Wiggers,  De  interpretationis  genere  quo 
N.  T.  scriptores  usi  sunt  (Rost.  1837),  p.  18  ff.;  Eichhorn,  Bibl.,  II.  948  ff.  ; 
R.  Anger,  Ratio  qua  loci  V.  T.  in  evang.  Matth.  laudantur,  etc.,  L.  1861,  p.  I.- 

III.  ;  A.  F.  Kautzsch,  De  V.  T.  locis  a  Paulo  ap.  allegatis,  L.  1869.  Among 
older  writers  we  mention  here  H.  Hody,  De  bibl.  textibus  orig.  et  verss.,  Oxf. 
1705,  fol.  p.  243  ff.  More  than  one  peculiar  Scripture  quotation  in  the  New 
Testament,  differing  equallj'^  from  the  original  text  and  from  the  Septua- 
gint, suggests  the  idea  of  independent  work  in  the  early  Church,  but  in  the 
majority  of  cases  the  dependence  on  the  LXX.  is  undeniable.  Moreover 
it  would  have  been  difficult,  outside  of  Palestine,  to  find  many  Christians 


290  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

who  would  have  been  able  to  make  a  translation  upon  the  spot  for  the  benefit 
of  the  assembled  chiu-ch.  [Cf.  on  this  subject,  Dav.  M.  Turpie,  The  0.  T. 
in  the  New,  Lond.  1868  ;  E.  Bcihl,  Die  A.  T.  Citate  im  N.  T.,  Vienna, 
1878,  and  his  Forschungen  nach  einer  Volkshihel  zur  Zeit  Jesu  und  deren 
Zusammenhang  mit  der  Septuafjinta-Uehersetzung,  Vienna,  1873;  Jas.  Scott, 
Principles  of  N.  T.  Quotation,  Edinb.  1875  ;  Scihaff,  Companion  to  the  Greek 
Testament,  N.  Y.  1883,  p.  23  f.] 

The  history  of  the  ecclesiastical  acceptance  of  the  LXX.  so  far  as  it  con- 
cerns the  synagogue,  is  extremely  obscure  ;  see  Zunz,  Gottesdienstl.  Vortrage 
der  Juden,  p.  10  ;  yet  in  all  probability  the  conception  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  LXX.  springs  from  Judaism. 

284.  So  long  as  Christian  instruction  was  imparted  essen- 
tially by  means  of  oral  tradition,  —  that  is  to  say,  until  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  —  there  were  no  regular  read- 
ings in  the  churches  except  perhaps  those  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  epistles  which  individual  churches  liad  received 
from  Apostles,  since  chiefly  designed  for  the  needs  of  the 
moment,  after  the  public  reading  upon  their  reception,  appear 
not  to  have  been  taken  up  again  at  definite  intervals.  The 
other  apostolic  writings,  more  general  in  their  purpose,  were 
circulated  in  the  usual  manner  of  that  time,  on  account  of  their 
intrinsic  value,  and  without  doubt  served  in  many  places  for 
private  edification  and  instruction,  but  without  being  specially 
commended  to  the  churches  by  public  attestation.  The  knowl- 
edge of  the  connection  of  the  presiding  officers  of  the  churches 
with  the  Apostles,  by  original  appointment  and  regular  succes- 
sion, was  as  yet  the  simplest  and  the  sufficient  guaranty  of  doc- 
trine. 

Usage  of  the  apostolic  (pastoral)  epistles  :  directed  in  the  first  instance  to 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  church,  perhaps,  also,  delivered  to  particular  es- 
pecially intimate  friends  (hence  the  greetings  with  the  formula  aa-rrdaaade, 
the  commissions,  and  passages  like  1  Thess.  v.  27  ;  Col.  iv.  16),  and  by  these 
immediately  imparted  to  the  assembled  church,  and  then  put  by  for  safe- 
keeping. Clement  (^Ad  Corr.  I.,  xlvii.,  avaxd^ere  tV  iina-ToX-nv.  .  .  )  and  Poly- 
carp  (Ad  Phil.,  iii.,  els  &$  iav  [not  'drav  ]  iyKinrrrire  Swrje-fia-eaOe  olKodofieiffdai)  do 
not  take  a  public  reading  of  their  epistles  for  granted,  but  desire  it.  Cf. 
in  general  Gieseler,  Entstehung  der  Evv.,  p.  156  ff. 

As  to  the  remaming  writings,  not  only  is  all  proof  from  the  period  under 
consideration  of  their  use  for  regular  public  reading  lacking,  but  almost  all 
evidence  of  their  existence.  Cf.  §  287.  Even  in  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajan 
(X.  97)  there  is  nothing  said  of  public  readings.  It  is  also  natural  that 
some  writings  should  have  come  into  circulation  more  slowly  than  others  ; 
this  appears  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  books  of  Luke  as  compared  with 
those  of  Matthew  and  Mark  ;  certainly  with  the  Epistle  of  James  and  the 
first  of  Peter,  not  to  mention  here  others  (of  doubtful  origin). 

The  authority  of  the  bishops  (or  elders)  already  commended  by  the  Apos- 
tles :  1  Cor.  xvi.  15  f.  ;  Phil.  ii.  29  ;  Col.  i.  7  ;  3  Thess.  v.  12  ;  Clem.  I., 
xlii.  ;  Ignat.,  Philad.,  vii.  ;  Magn.,  viii.,  xiii. 

P.  C.  Diirr,  De  antiq.  Jidei  et  morum  regula,  Gott.  1781  ;  D.  Schenkel, 
Ueber  das  urspr.  Verh.  d.  Kirche  z.  Kanon,  1838  ;  C.  R.  Kostlin,  Das  Verh. 
zwischen  apost.  Tradition  und  Schrift  in  den  ersten  Jahrh.  (Tub.  Jahrb.,  1850, 
I.). 


APOSTOLIC   WRITINGS  —  INSPIRATION.  291 

285.  The  first  Christians  were  in  a  measure  prevented  by 
their  peculiar  religious  conceptions  from  according  to  any  new 
books  equal  honor  with  those  which  had  been  handed  down 
from  father  to  son,  and  whose  great  age  had  won  for  them  an 
inalienable  right  of  precedence.  The  Holy  Spirit,  which  once 
had  rested  only  on  a  few  prophets,  had  been  imparted  to  all 
the  chosen  of  Christ,  and  no  one  could  or  desired  to  claim  for 
himself  or  any  other  disciple  an  exclusive  inspiration.  And 
that  one  among  the  Christian  schools  which  by  its  doctrine  of 
the  Law  seemed  to  derogate  most  from  the  ancient  authoi'ity 
of  the  sacred  writings  of  the  people  of  God  really  established 
it,  as  the  earlier  form  of  revelation,  in  order  to  set  over  against 
it  a  new  one,  and  so,  free  from  the  bonds  of  the  letter,  to  rec- 
ognize only  a  faith  in,  and  service  of,  the  spirit. 

The  Apostles  themselves  do  uot  appeal  to  their  own  writings  as  authority 
(although  they  refer  to  them  incidentally,  1  Cor.  v.  9  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  8,  etc.), 
but  to  tradition  and  the  Old  Testament,  even  for  the  gospel  history  :  1  Cor. 
xi.  23  ;  XV.  3-7  ;  for  the  rest  to  their  oral  instruction.  (Correct  interpreta- 
tion of  ivajye\i6v  jxov,  Rom.  ii.  16  ;  xvi.  25  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  8.)  Reference  to  aii 
apostolic  writing  as  ypaipi)  first  occurs  (not  in  1  Tim.  v.  18,  over  which  there 
is  controversy,  §  92)  in  Barnabas,  ch.  iv.,  of  a  Gospel,  in  2  Pet.  iii.  16,  of  the 
Pauline  writings,  in  both  passages  (quite  isolated,  moreover)  either  an  evi- 
dence against  the  alleged  author  or  of  an  extra-canonical  quotation,  (Weiz- 
sacker,  Kritik  des  Barnabas-Brief,  p.  34.)  See  also  Clem.,  Ep.  II.  ad  Corr., 
passim  •  Polycarp,  Ad  Phil.,  xii.,  in  the  Latin  text. 

All  Christians  have  the  Holy  Spirit,  i.  e.,  are  inspired,  from  the  same 
source  and  for  the  same  purpose,  and  this  constitutes  the  essence  of  Christi- 
anity :  Jn.  xiv.  16  ;  xv.  26  ;  xvi.  7-15  ;  Acts  ii.  14-21  ;  iv.  31  ;  viii.  15-17  ; 
x.  44  ;  xi.  15-17  ;  xv.  8,  28,  etc.  Rom.  viii.  9,  14  ;  1  Cor.  iii.  16  ;  vi.  19  ; 
vii.  40  (K&.y^)  ;  xii.  3  ff.  ;  2  Cor.  i.  22  ;  iii.  17,  18  ;  Eph.  iv.  30  ;  1  Tliess.  v. 
19,  20  ;  1  Ju.  iv.  2,  etc.  Clem.,  Ad  Cor.  I.,  ii.  46  ;  Barn.,  chs.  ix.,  xvi.,  xix.  ; 
Ignat.,  Ad  Philad.,  vii.  ;  Polyc,  ix.  ;  Hermas,  Shepherd,  II.,  Aland.  3.  Cf. 
Credner,  Beilrage,  I.  1-91.  The  fact  that  these  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were 
sometimes  designed  rather  for  the  sanctification  of  the  life  and  will,  or  to 
strengthen  for  action,  and  not  always  cliiefly  for  the  enlightenment  of  the 
miderstanding,  does  not  alter  the  matter. 

The  criterion  of  inspiration  is  not  apostolic  writing,  but  the  gift  of  the 
"proving  of  spirits  "  (naturally  developed  and  guided  by  oral  instruction). 
1  Cor.  xii.  10  ;  1  Tliess.  v.  21  ;  1  Jn.  iv.  1.  In  the  enumeration  of  charisms 
(Rom.  xii.  ;  1  Cor.  xii.)  there  is  no  special  gift  of  authorship. 

For  the  Pauline  theory  cf.  2  Cor.  iii.  ;  Rom.  vii.  6,  etc.,  and  in  general 
Nosselt,  Exercitt.,  p.  47  ff.  ;  Paulus,  in  Pott's  Si/lloge,  III.  298  ff.  ;  A.  Jahn, 
Ad  quosnam  pertineat  promissio  Sp.  S.  sec.  N.  T.,  Bas.  1841  ;  G.  L.  Leblois, 
Sur  Vinspiration  des  premiers  Chretiens,  Str.  1850;  Witsius,  MiscelL,  p.  294  ff. 

286.  But  aside  from  this  dogmatic  point  of  view,  the 
churches  must  have  received  letters  from  the  Apostles  with 
the  greatest  interest  and  preserved  them  carefully,  as  precious 
memorials  of  former  relations,  the  remembrance  of  which  was 
ever  dear  to  them.  The  Apostles  themselves  often  gave  their 
letters  an  encyclical  character,  which  certainly  would  lead  to  the 
immediate  multiplication  of  the  copies ;  neighboring  churches 


292  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

communicated  to  one  another  what  they  possessed ;  the  fre- 
quent tours  of  the  missionaries  facilitated  this  exchange,  and 
even  private  persons,  with  little  pains  and  small  cost,  might 
have  copies  taken  of  books  which  came  in  their  way. 

On  the  possible  methods  of  multiplication  of  encyclical  letters  see  espe- 
cially the  modem  introductions  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Cf.  also  Col. 
iv.  16  ;  2  Cor.  i.  1  ;  Gal.  i.  2  (1  Pet.  i.  1)  ;  Rev.  i.  4. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  missionaries  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  they 
were  agents  of  a  modern  Bible  or  Tract  Society.  Cf.  Polyc,  Ad  Ph'dipp., 
xiii.  ;  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  36,  37  ;  v.  25,  where  examples  of  exchange  of  epis- 
tles between  churches  occur,  and  in  the  passage  cited  from  Polycarp  of  such 
a  sort  that  it  must  be  inferred  either  that  the  churches  did  not  yet  possess 
all  the  apostolic  epistles  complete  or  that  they  used  non-apostolic  ones  also 
for  public  reading.  J.  E,.  liiesling,  De  stabili  primit.  eccl.  ope  epp.  communi- 
catoriarum  connubio,  L.  1744. 

See  Griesbach,  Hist,  textus  epp.  paul.,  in  his  0pp.,  II.  82. 

287.  Nevertheless  the  circulation  of  the  apostolic  writings 
progressed  but  slowly,  and  all  through  the  first  half  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  according  to  the  extant  evidence,  the  use  made  of 
them  apjaears  to  have  been  still  very  limited.  For  doctrine  as 
well  as  for  the  history  tradition  sufficed,  and  even  where 
knowledge  of  the  latter  perhaps  depended  upon  books  tliese 
could  not  be  directly  appealed  to  as  indisputable  evidence. 
The  epistles  were  regarded  as  the  private  property  of  those  to 
whom  they  wei'e  written,  or  at  least  as  of  interest  chiefly  to 
them  ;  for  the  rest  they  were  used  occasionally  for  rhetorical 
or  homiletical  purposes.  Most  of  the  quotations  from  them,  in 
this  period,  are  quotations  of  single  sentences,  without  name, 
and  a  full  century  passed  before  any  one  thought  of  an  argu- 
mentative appeal  to  them  as  authorities. 

Early  traces  of  the  use  of  apostolic  writings  in  our  Canon  (not  in  the 
Epistle  of  James,  §  145,  but  doubtless)  in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  §  148  ; 
perhaps  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  §  234. 

Papias  (in  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  39) :  ov  yap  ra  e'/c  rwv  jSi/SAftor  too-ovtSv  ne  oj^e- 
Aetf  iiizeKdfjL^avov  '6(tov  to,  irapa  ^wayjs  (paivris  Ka\  fxeuovaris.  Beside  this,  mention  by 
name  of  only  two  Gospels  (§§  186,  187),  and  use  (by  name  ?)  of  1  Peter 
and  1  John.  A  reference  to  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  also  to 
be  found  in  the  extant  fragments.  His  historical  notices  sometimes  contra- 
dict the  canonical  accounts  (e.  g.,  the  death  of  Judas).  To  him  are  also  re- 
ferred several  testimonies  of  older  Christians  (irpea^vTepoi,  veteres,  seniores^ 
found  in  Irenseus,  some  of  which  agree  with  our  texts,  others  vary  there- 
from. See  Otto,  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  hist.  Tlieol.,  1844,  III.  ;  ef.  in  general 
Rettberg,  in  the  Hall.  EiicykL,  III.  11.  It  is  at  all  events  of  importance  for 
the  history  that  no  use  of  Pauline  writings  was  to  be  discovered  in  him  (the 
Chiliast). 

Clem.,  Ad  Cor.  I.,  xlvil.:  vixlv  eypa^pfv.  Also  reminiscences  from  the  Epis- 
tles to  the  Romans,  Corinthians,  Hebrews  (chs.  xxiv.,  xxxii.-xxxvi.,  etc.). 
Ignat.,  Ad  Eph.,  xii. :  /xj/Tj/^ovevei  vixUv.  Also,  without  names  or  formulas  of 
quotation,  passages  from  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians  and 
the  Gospel  of  John  (Magn.,  x.;  Eph.,x\m.;  Rom.,in.,  vii.  ;  Philad.,  i.;  Srm/rn., 
vi.,  etc.).     Polycarp,  Ad  Phil.,  iii.,  eypa\l/fi/  vfuv ;  and  silent  use  of  Acts,  Ro- 


EAKLY   USE   OF  APOSTOLIC   WRITINGS.  293 

mans,  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  1  Timothy,  1  John,  1  Peter.  (Quite 
differently  2  Pet.  iii.  15,  where  the  sypaxj/ey  v/x'lu  necessarily  refers  to  all 
Christians.)  If  isolated  expressions  could  prove  anything  these  remmiscences 
would  certainly  be  more  frequent,  yet  not  always  necessarily  referring  to  our 
canonical  text  ;  see  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vdter,  p.  47,  103  ;  Lubkert,  in  Nied- 
ner's  Zeitsclir.,  1854,  p.  610  ft'.  With  respect  to  the  preliminary  critical  ques- 
tions regardmg  these  latter  writings  we  refer  to  the  more  general  works  on 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  to  Herzog's  Encijklo- 


Extensive  biit  uncritical  collection  of  such  passages  in  J.  Usserius,  Hint,  docj- 
matica  controversice  de  scripturls  et  sacris  vernaculis,  Lond.  1G90  ;  J.  H.  Barth, 
De  studio  et  amore  vett.  Chr.  in  S.  S.,  Arg.  1713  ;  G.  G.  Zeltner,  De  more  in- 
ter condonandum  hibUa  s.  evolvendi,  Altd.  1728  ;  F.  Woken,  Historie  des  Bi- 
helfleisses  der  alien  Christen,  L.  1726  ;  A.  J.  Onymus,  Geschichte  des  Bibel- 
lesens,  1786  ;  M.  A.  Paira,  Utilite  de  la  lecture  des  SS.  ecritures,  Str.  1828  ; 
A.  Sandbiichler,  Lasen  die  ersten  Christen  die  h.  S.  f  1784;  N.  Lardner,  Cred- 
ibility of  the  Gospel  History,  (  Works,  I.- VI.  ed.  Kippis,  1788)  ;  P.  Bonneton, 
La  Bible  avec  Vcglise,  Gen.  1849  ;  D.  Erdmann,  Das  Bibellesen  in  der  alien 
Kirche,  B.  1855  ft.,  3  Pts.  ;  fi.  v.  Muralt,  Ein  Gang  durchs  N.  T.  an  der 
Hand  der  dlteslen  Kirchenlehrer,  Bern,  1867  ;  on  the  contrary,  especially  Gie- 
seler,  Entstehung  der  Ecv.,  p.  149  ft.  ;  Angusti,  Handbuch  der  christl.  Archd- 
ologie,  II.  166  ff.  ;  see  also  Bmgham,  Antiqq.  eccl.,  Bk.  XIV.  ch.  3  ;  C.  J. 
Estlander,  De  usu  S.  S.  in  eccl.  cath.  duobus  primis  secc,  Hels.  1829. 

Nor  are  references  to  gospel  events  and  particular  utterances  of  Jesus 
lacking  in  the  Fathers  mentioned,  but  they  in  part  do  not  presuppose  a  writ- 
ten source  and  in  part  rather  one  no  longer  accessible  to  us.  Cf.  Barnabas, 
chs.  iv.,  vii.,  xv.  (§  234)  ;  Clement,  Ad  Cor.  I.,  xiii.,  xlvi.  ;  Ignat.,  Ad  Eph., 
xiv.,  xix.  ;  Ad  Smyrn.,  i.,  iii.  ;  Ad  Polyc,  ii.  ;  Polyc,  Ad  Phil.,  ii.,  etc.  Cf. 
also  C.  C.  J.  Bunsen,  Ignatius  u.  seine  Zeit,  1847,  p.  157  ft.  In  general,  J. 
H.  Scholten,  Die  dltesten  Zeugnisse  betreffend  die  Scliriften  des  N.  T.  hist,  un- 
tersucht,  from  the  Dutch  by  C.  Manchot,  Brem.  1867. 

288.  The  divisions  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians 
and  their  jealousy  for  their  respective  heads  were  also  a  hin- 
drance, not  to  be  overlooked,  to  the  formation  of  a  collection 
such  as  our  present  one.  The  parties,  which  had  needed  some 
time  to  come  to  full  consciousness  of  the  principles  -which 
separated  them,  were  in  the  j)ost-apostolic  age  in  some  respects 
still  less  inclined  to  be  friendly  than  when  the  first  preachers 
of  the  Gospel,  now  at  rest,  had  attempted  in  vain  to  twine  the 
bonds  of  one  faith  about  the  scattered  members  of  the  Church. 
Moreover  the  writings  of  these  men  were  involved  in  many  ways 
in  the  polemics  of  the  day,  to  the  one  party  as  a  stumbling- 
block,  to  the  other  as  a  refreshment  of  its  convictions,  and  a 
long  time  must  have  passed  before  the  voice  of  peace  found 
a  formula  by  which,  upon  middle  ground,  and  by  means  of 
mutual  concessions,  an  actually  common.  Catholic  Church 
could  be  formed,  giving  up  the  more  extreme  views  on  both 
sides  and  gathering  together  for  the  common  advantage  what 
each  party  had  inherited  of  apostolic  literary  treasure. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  simple  fact  that,  even  in  the  limited  older  New 
Testament  collection,  writings  of  more  Jewish-Christian  tendency  stand  side 


294  HISTORY  OF   THE  CANON. 

by  side  with  Pauline  and  Johannean,  and,  what  is  no  less  significant,  with 
those  obviously  of  middle  tendency.  In  the  apostolic  age  there  miglit  be 
mediatory  personalities,  but  not  a  party  of  that  type.  Cf.  §  137  and  espe- 
cially Ritschl,  Die  Entstehung  der  altkathol.  Kirche  (1850),  2d  ed.  1857  ; 
Lipsius,  Die  Zeit  des  Irenceus  und  die  Entstehung  der  altkath.  Kirche  {^Hist. 
Zeitschr.,  Pt.  XXVIII.,  p.  241  ff.)- 

For  the  earlier  period,  however,  there  is  unexceptionable  evidence  that  the 
churches  which  stood  by  Jewish  Christianity  contented  themselves  with  a 
single  Gospel  (a  Greek  or  Hebrew  Matthew  ;  §  186)  and  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  Pauline  preaching  (Iren.,  i.  26  ;  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  27)  ;  which, 
however,  cannot  be  understood  as  meaning  that  they  had  gone  out  from  a 
Church  which  already  possessed  and  daily  used  all  this  and  much  more  as  a 
common  treasure. 

289.  For  all  these  reasons  we  cannot  speak  of  any  real 
necessity  for  a  more  or  less  complete  collection  of  apostolic 
writings  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Nor  is  there 
the  slightest  trace  of  any  measures  being  taken  by  the  Apostles 
or  their  immediate  successors  to  provide  all  the  churches  with 
authentic  copies  of  them.  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
the  Church  had  no  longer  a  centre,  and  the  task  of  preparing 
such  collections  was  necessarily  left  to  individual  persons  or 
places.  It  therefore  required  the  coincidence  of  several  power- 
ful causes  to  bring  about  the  first  attempts  of  any  importance. 

Older  treatises  on  the  history  of  our  Canon  :  J.  Ens,  Bibliotheca  s.,  Amst. 
1710  ;  J.  Frick,  De  cura  ecdesice  veteris  circa  canonein  S.  S.,  Ulm,  1728  ;  C. 
E.  Weissmaun,  Justce  ac  pice  rationes  collect,  canon.  S.  S.,  Tiib.  1737  ;  J.  P. 
Lufft,  De  canone  S.  S.,  Arg.  1743  ;  E.  H.  D.  Stosch,  De  cura  vet.  eccl.  circa 
II.  ss.  N.  T.,  Frankf.  a.  V.  1749  ;  repeated  in  his  Comm.  hist,  critica  de  II. 
N.  T.  canone,  Fraidif.  a.  V.  1755  ;  D.  Hering,  Abhh.,  p.  115  if.;  C.  F.  Sehmid, 
Hist,  antiqua  et  vindicatio  canonis,  L.  1775  ;  cf.  his  Krit.  Unterss.  iiber  die 
Offenb.  Joh.,  pp.  64-150  ;  C.  W.  F.  Walch,  Kritische  Untersuchung  vom  Ge- 
hrauch  der  h.  S.  unter  den  alten  Christen  in  den  ersten  If,  Jahrh.,  L.  1779  ;  also 
J.  Usserius,  Hist,  controversire  de  scripturis  vernaculis,  Lond.  1690  ;  T.  G. 
Hegelmaier,  Gesch.  des  Bibelverbots,  Ulm,  1783  ;  J.  M.  Lobstein,  De  vet.  eccl. 
II.  ss.  amore,  Giss.  1775.  None  of  them  sufficiently  critical  respecting  the 
period  now  under  consideration. 

Since  the  time  of  Semler  (§  342):  C.  F.  Weber,  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  des 
neutest.  Kanons,  Tiib.  1791;  H.  Corrodi,  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung  der  Ge- 
schichte des  jiidischen  und  christlichen  Bibelkanons,  Halle,  1792,  2  Pts.  Cf.  also 
Mosheim,  Vindic.  adv.  Toland.,  p.  342  S.;  Mill,  Proleg.  ad  N.  T.;  Schrockh, 
Kirchengesch.,  IX.  and  passim;  Miinseher,  Dogmengeschichte,  I.  256  ff.  ; 
Augusti,  Dogm.  Einl.,  p.  178  ff.  ;  Jachmann,  in  Illgen's  Zeitschr.,  1842,  II.  ; 
Oehler  and  Landerer,  Art.  Kanon  in  Herzog's  Encykl. ;  Credner,  Beitrcige,  I. 
1-91  (§  285)  ;  idem,  Geschichte  des  neutest.  Kanons,  edited  by  G.  Volkmar, 
B.  I860  ;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Der  Kanon  und  die  Kritik  des  N.  T.  in  ihrer  gesch. 
Ausbildung,  H.  1863.  [Gaussen,  Le  Canon  des  Saintes  Ecritures,  Laus.  1860, 
2  vols.  ;  tr.  and  abr.  by  Dr.  E.  N.  Kirk,  The  Canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
Examined  in  the  Light  of  History,  Boston,  1862  ;  Bleek,  Einl.  in  d.  N.  T., 
B.  1862,  pp.  631-678  (E.  tr.  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1870,  2  vols.) ;  Westcott,  History 
of  the  Canon  of  the  N.  T.,  Cambr.  1855,  2d  ed.  enlarged  and  revised,  Lond. 
1866  ;  "  the  best  treatise  on  the  subject  in  English."  (Prof.  Ezra  Abbot.)] 
—  The  literature  belonging  under  this  head  is  also  catalogued  by  Bertholdt, 
Einl.,  I.  64  if.,  and  the  older  especially  by  Fabricius,  Syllab.  apolog.,  p.  513. 


EEASONS  FOR  THE  FORMATION  OF  A   CANON.  295 

Fable  of  a  collection  of  apostolic  writings  prepared  by  John  (Photius, 
Cod.,  254  ;  from  a  niisuuderstanding  of  which  came  what  Euseb.,  H.  E., 
iiL  24,  Jerome,  Catal.,  ix.,  says  with  reference  to  the  snpposed  supplementary 
purpose  of  his  Gospel),  still  defended,  after  the  example  of  older  writers,  by 
Augusti,  Dogm.  Einl.  in  d.  h.  S.,  p.  205  flf. 

Supposed  traces  of  an  already  existing  collection,  in  Ignat.,  Ad  Pkilad.,  v., 
irpoa(pvywv  T(fi  tvayye^Kp  ws  trop/cJ  'irjcov  Kod  toIs  h.Tro<TT6kois  iis  npfcrfivTepia)  eK/cATjtrtcts, 
where  the  author  is  obviously  speaking  of  the  Apostles  not  as  writers  but  as 
a  particular  body  of  disciples  who  had  authoritatively  founded  the  Church. 
Cf.  also  ch.  ix.  But  especially  ch.  viii.  :  i]Kovad  rivo>v  Aey6vToiv  on,  iav  jxt)  iv 
rots  apx^lois  (apxalois  ?)  evpu,  eV  to?  evayyexiw  ov  iriaTtvai,  which  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood of  archives  containing  apostolic  writings,  but  of  appeal  to  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecies,  over  against  which  the  author  sets  his  unconditional  faith 
in  Christ  and  the  facts  of  the  gospel  as  a  firmer  foundation.  See  Lessing, 
Theol.  Nachlass.,  pp.  73, 113, 185  ;  D.  Hering,  on  the  passage,  1778  ;  J.  E.  C. 
Schmidt,  in  his  Blblioth.,  III.  299  ;  Gieseler,  I.  c,  p.  IGO  f .  ;  Rettig,  in  Ephem. 
Giss.,  III.  72  ;  Schulthess,  Theol.  Nachr.,  Jan.  1829  ;  H.  A.  Niemeyer,  in  the 
Oppos.  Schrift,  New  Series,  I.  2  ;  Nolte,  in  the  Tub.  Quartalschr.,  1857,  IV. 
—  J.  Delitzsch,  De  inspir.  S.  S.  quid  statuerint  patres  apostolici  et  apologetce 
Scec.  J  I.,  L.  1872,  p.  56  ff.,  asserts,  if  not  a  proper  canonical  collection,  at 
least  the  equal  canonical  authority  of  the  apostolic  writings  (homologoumena) 
and  the  Old  Testament  from  the  time  of  Barnabas,  Ignatius,  and  Justin. 

The  later  doubts  concerning  the  genuineness  of  many  writings  (as  well  as 
the  possibility  of  the  circulation  of  several  spurious  ones)  are  not  only  inex- 
plicable upon  the  assumption  of  an  early  fixing  of  the  Canon,  traced  back 
even  to  apostolic  authority,  but  absolutely  fatal  to  it. 

The  older  science  even  ventured  to  fix  the  year  when  the  Canon  was  com- 
pleted (Gospels,  99  ;  Epistles,  110,  Mill,  Proleg.  ad  N.  T.,  §  193  flf.  ;  before 
107,  O.  Bouchet,  Epoque  de  la  reunion  des  homologoumenes,  Mont.  1863). 

The  history  of  the  Canon  is  treated  rather  from  a  theological  than  a  lit- 
erary-historical point  of  view  by  G.  J.  Planck,  Einl.  in  die  theol.  Wiss.,  I. 
413  ff.;  Grimm,  in  the  Hall.  EncykL,  II.  19,  p.  70  ff.;  Tholuck,  in  the  Berl. 
Zeitschr.,  1850,  No.  16  ff.;  A.  Daniel,  Theol.  Controversen,  1843. 

290.  Sucli  causes,  which  gradually  led  the  Church  back  to 
the  authentic  documents  of  the  apostolic  doctrine,  were,  first, 
the  threatening  spread  of  Gnosticism,  next,  tlie  increasing 
flood  of  apocryphal  writings,  lastly,  the  instinctive  perception 
of  the  insufficiency  and  weakness  of  every  other  foundation 
for  instruction.  But  a  long  time  passed  before  these  causes 
could  bring  about  their  result,  and  as  long  as  dogmatic  tradi- 
tion still  had  life  enough  to  resist  corruption,  almost  inevi- 
table in  this  century  of  the  most  manifold  commotions,  it  was 
not  the  books  that  formed  the  rule  of  faith  but  rather  the 
books  themselves  were  judged  by  the  traditional  rule. 

These  phenomena  are  not  strange  and  abnormal,  but  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  course  which  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  had  taken.  In  many 
cases  no  other  criterion  of  genuinesss  was  known  or  desired.  Examples  are 
furnished,  for  this  period,  by  the  history  of  Jewish  Cliristianity  and  Chiliasm 
in  particular. 

On  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  their  relation  to  the  rule  of 
faith  in  the  Protestant  and  in  the  ancient  Church  :  Three  letters  by  C.  H. 
Sack,  C.  I.  Nitzsch,  and  F.  Liieke,  Bonn,  1827 ;  J.  L.  Jacobi,  Die  Hrchlichs 
Lehre  von  der  Tradition  und  heil,  Schr.  in  ihrer  Entwicklung,  B.  1847,  Pt.  I.; 


296  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

see  also  §  284.  —  For  the  Catholic  view  of.  especially  J.  H.  Friedlieb,  Schrift, 
Tradition,  und  kirchliche  Schriftauslegung,  .  .  .  7iach  den  Zeugnissen  der  filnf 
ersten  Jahrh.,  Br.  1854.  —  The  utterances  of  the  Ante-Nieeue  Church  Fathers 
(the  Apostles  included)  upon  the  authority  of  Scripture  are  collected  by 
ilouth,  iu  the  Relig.  ss.,  ed.  2,  V.  335  if. 

291.  It  also  followed  from  this  that  the  choice  of  the  apos- 
tolic writings  Avhich  each  individual  teacher  placed  in  the 
hands  of  his  pupils  was  entirely  free,  inasmuch  as  neither  cus- 
tom nor  any  ecclesiastical  authority  had  prescribed  it.  Thus 
Marcion  had  gathered  a  collection  which  has  been  erroneously 
regarded  as  the  first  attempt  at  a  New  Testament  Canon.  This 
heretic  certainly  proceeded  upon  no  literary-historical  princi- 
ple in  his  task,  but  upon  a  purely  subjective  and  dogmatic 
one.  He  allowed  to  the  books  themselves  no  divine  authority 
at  all,  and  consequently  might  permit  himself  to  treat  the  text 
according  to  his  pleasure.  The  collection  therefore  consisted 
by  no  means  of  all  books  which  were  accessible  to  him  and 
known  as  apostolic,  but  simply  of  the  single  Gospel,  and  ten 
epistles  of  the  single  Apostle  whom  he  accepted. 

For  proof  as  to  the  Catholic  party,  see  §  294.  For  the  literature  on 
Marcion,  §  246.  A.  Hahn,  De  canone  Mnrcionis  antinomi,  Reg.  18"J4,  Pts. 
I.,  II. ;  cf .  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnost.,  II.  224,  ed.  2  ;  Kii-chhofer,  Quellens.,  p. 
357  ff.  (§  307). 

Order  of  the  books  in  his  collection  :  Gospel  of  Christ,  Epistles  to  the 
Galatians,  Corinthians,  Romans,  Thessalonians,  Laodiceans,  Colossians,  Phi- 
lemon, Philippians  (r'b  evayjiXiov,  6  a.ir6a-To\os).  This  order,  compared  with 
that  which  afterward  became  usual,  bears  clear  witness  either  to  the  critical 
aeuteness  of  Marcion  or  to  the  correctness  of  a  soon  fori^otten  tradition,  in 
any  case  to  the  fact  that  no  other  as  yet  had  general  currency. 

Tlie  opinions  of  the  Church  Fathers  respecting  this  collection  are  made 
up  in  accordance  with  later  conceptions  of  the  Canon  ;  the  views  of  those 
moderns  who  regard  it  as  the  first  attempt  at  a  Canon  are  at  variance  vnth 
the  ideas  of  that  age  and  school  respecting  the  value  of  apostolic  writings. 
But  we  may  certainly  infer  from  this  oldest  collection  of  which  we  have 
definite  knowledge  the  gradually  spreading  custom  of  making  use  of  apos- 
tolic writings. 

292.  It  was  in  general  the  heretics  of  the  second  century 
who  first  felt  the  need  of  arranging  their  thenlDgieal  an  J  phi- 
losophical ideas  into  systems  and  of  supporting  them  by  actual 
or  alleged  apostolic  books.  Since  their  speculations  had  not 
grown  up  upon  ecclesiastical  ground,  and  since  the  most  noted 
among  them  had  moreover  an  outspoken  antipathy  to  the  Old 
Testament  revelations,  which  were  made  fundamental  by  their 
opponents,  they  turned  by  preference,  in  order  to  establish 
their  views,  to  apostolic  authorities,  sometimes  drawing  over 
to  their  side,  by  means  of  partial  use  of  their  extant  writings 
and  more  or  less  arbitrary  exposition  of  the  text,  the  nutliority 
of  their  honored  names,  but  sometimes  even  niiRnsing  these 
names  for  the  defense  and  commendation  of  their  doctrines  in 


HERETICAL  COLLECTIONS.  297 

forged  writings.  Yet  this  very  circumstance  and  the  continual 
increase  of  the  Apocrypha  shows  that  the  Church  had  not  yet 
formed  its  Canon,  to  say  nothing  of  having  closed  it.  Basil- 
ides,  Carpocrates,  Valentinus,  Heracleon,  Tatian,  and  still 
others,  knew,  quoted,  and  even  commented  upon  the  writings 
of  the  Apostles  before  the  Catholics  thought  of  preparing  an 
attested  collection  of  them. 

The  relation  of  the  Gnostic  sects  to  the  Old  Testament  may  here,  where 
the  question  is  chiefly  concerning  the  development  of  the  Christian  Canon, 
be  fitly  passed  over.  (Cf.  L.  D.  Cramer,  Hisloria  sententiarum  de  sacra  II. 
V.  T.  auclorilate  ad  Christianos  spectante,  L.  1819,  2  Pts.,  4°,  p.  13  ff.)  But 
it  is  just  this  relation  which  explains  how  they  were  led  to  the  apostolic  writ- 
ings. 

On  the  Gospels  of  these  heretics  see  §  245.  Owing  to  the  absence  of  gen- 
erally attested  wi'itings  and  the  luxuriant  growth  of  unwatched  tradition 
they  were  as  arbitrary  as  they  were  adapted  to  their  purpose.  The  Epistles 
were  rendered  harmless  by  selection  and  exegesis  ;  likewise  John. 

The  expression  of  Irenseus respecting  the  Gnostics  (^Adv.  Hcer.,  III.  12,  p. 
198,  scripturas  quidem  conjitentur  interpretationes  vero  convertunt)  or  even  that 
of  Tertidlian  respecting  Valentinus  {Pra;scr.,  ch.  38  :  integro  instrumento  uti 
videtur  ;  ibid.,  ch.  17:  ista  hceresis  non  recipit  quasdam  scripturas  et  si  quas  re- 
cipit  .  .  ,  ad  dispositionem  sui  instituti  intervertit,  et  .  .  .  non  recipit  integras), 
or  that  of  Hippolytus  respecting  Apelles  (Philos.,  p.  259  :  tq>v  fiiayyeAlcDv  ^ 
rod  o.iTO(n6\ov  to,  apiaKovra  avrcf  alpe'iTat)  presupposes  m  an  uncritical  way  a 
Church  Canon,  if  not  closed  yet  m  process  of  foi-mation,  even  in  earlier  times, 
and  is  contradicted  by  the  fact  that  the  Church  Fathers  themselves  men- 
tion it  as  something  noteworthy  that  this  or  that  Gnostic  used  an  apostolic 
book.  Moreover,  later  witnesses  were  doubtless  often  inclined  to  trace  back 
the  doctrines  and  customs  of  still  existing  schools  to  their  founders.  So 
Epiphanius  (Hmr.,  Ivi.),  of  Bardesanes:  XP^''"'"  TaAaifi  re  /cal  Kaivy  SiadriKr)  Koi 

Basilides  (Jerome,  Prooem.  in  Tit.)  rejected  the  Pastoral  Epistles  of  Paul. 
On  his  other  quotations  see  P.  Hofstede  de  Groot,  Basilides  am  Ausgang  d. 
ap.  Zeitalters  ah  erster  Zeuge  f.  Alter  u.  Autoritdt  JV.  T.  Schriften  bes.  des 
Evang.  Joh.  (from  the  Dutch),  L.  1868  ;  and  upon  it,  C.  E.  Scharling,  Un- 
ters.  ilber  die  gnostischen  Citationen  in  den  Philos.  (Danish),  Copenh.  1868. 
His  adherents  (Clem.,  Strom.,  I.  340)  kept  the  festival  of  the  baptism  of 
Chx'ist  TTpoSiavvKTepevouTes  avayvdaeffi.  Carpocrates  (Iren.,  Adv.  Hcer.,  I.  25,  p. 
104)  is  said  to  liave  used  Matthew  and  Luke  (?). 

Valentinus  (Iren.,  III.  11,  14,  pp.  190,  202,  etc.)  had  besides  John,  who  in 
his  school  also  was  commented  upon  together  with  the  other  Gos])els.  His 
Evangelium  veritatis  shows  by  its  name  and  the  contrast  suggested  thereby 
what  authority  was  accorded  by  him  to  the  others.  Also  references  to  sev- 
eral Paidine  epistles.  Cf.  §  245.  G.  Heinrici,  Die  valent.  Gnosis  und  d.  h. 
Schriften,  B.  1871,  p.  40  ff.,  182  ff. 

The  material  belonging  here  has  been  very  much  increased  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  so-called  Philosophotimena  (E.  Miller,  1851)  or  Hippolytus' 
Refutationes  omnium  kceresium  (ed.  L.  Duncker,  Gott.  1859),  and  the  result 
has  been  to  make  the  case  for  the  age  and  early  authority  of  the  Gospels 
(even  John)  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  more  favorable.  Yet  criticism  re- 
gards it  as  a  question  yet  open  whether  all  the  quotations  found  in  this 
work  really  cr.me  directly  from  the  oldest  Gnostic  writings.  See  on  the 
Ophites,  Bk.  V.  7  ff.  ;  on  the  school  of  Valentinus,  Bk.  VI.  ;  on  Basilides, 
Bk.  VII.  25  ff. 


298  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

Tatian  (§  199),  Orat.  ad  Grcecos,  ed.  C.  Otto,  Jena,  1851,  has  no  express 
quotations,  but  here  and  there  Johaimean  (ch.  xiii.,  xix.)  and  Paulina  (chs. 
xi.,  xvi.)  phrases  ;  also  references  to  words  of  Jesus  (from  Matthew  ?). 
Similar  things  are  mentioned  in  the  ancient  writers  from  his  lost  work,  riepl 
Tov  Kara  rhy  crocTrjpa  KarapTKr/xov  (On  Cliristiau  perfection  in  the  meaning  of 
the  Saviour),  which  in  part  even  by  its  bad  exegesis  shows  that  the  apostolic 
writings  were  already  authorities.  He  rejected  several  Pauline  Epistles  but 
exjH'essly  not  all  (Jerome,  Prooem.  in  Tit.,  cf.  Clem.,  Strom.,  III.  460).  His 
immediate  followers,  the  Severians  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  IV.  29)  accepted  the 
Prophets  and  Gospels,  but  rejected  Paul  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

From  all  this  confusion  in  the  theological  use  of  the  apostolic  books  it  is 
obvious  that  no  definite  ecclesiastical  custom  or  ride  was  yet  in  existence. 
Cf.  also  Augusti,  Handhuch  der  christl.  ArchdoL,  II.  169  ff.  ;  Credner,  Bd' 
trage,  I.  36  if.,  and  below,  §  508  ;  also  §  245. 

But  on  the  other  hand  the  circumstance  that  the  Clementines,  for  exam- 
ple, in  theLr  polemic  against  Paul,  do  not  mention  him  by  name,  shows  how 
great  his  authority  must  already  have  been,  even  in  the  sphere  where  they 
could  have  influence. 

293.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  put  aside,  in  the  history  of 
the  collection  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  all  current  preju- 
dices, it  is  fitting  to  make  special  mention  of  the  extensive,  un- 
disturbed, and  innocent  use  which  the  members  of  the  Church 
in  the  second  century  might  make  of  such  books  as  afterward, 
upon  the  rise  of  more  definite  opinions  of  the  exclusive  value 
of  the  apostolic  writings,  were  partly  quietly  laid  aside,  partly 
rejected  with  emphasis.  It  is  sufficiently  evident  from  this 
fact  not  only  that  no  authoritative  arrangement  or  selection 
had  been  yet  made,  but  also  that  mere  literary  taste  was  as 
poor  a  judge  of  the  true  sources  of  knowledge  as  theological 
opinion. 

At  the  head  of  the  examples  to  be  adduced  here  should  certainly  be 
placed  (Paul,  2  Tim.  iii.  8  ?)  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  which  uses  apocryphal 
writings  (vss.  9,  14)  and  even  quotes  them.  Jn.  vii.  38,  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  Ja.  iv. 
6,  Lk.  xi.  49  have  also  been  cited  (Bleek,  in  the  Studien,  1853,  II.  326  ff.), 
but  with  very  doubtful  projiriety.  More  certainly,  quotations  occur  from 
prophets  unknown  to  us  in  Barnabas  xii.,  xvi.,  Clem.,  I  Cor.  xxiii.,  from  4 
Ezra  (?)  in  Clem.,  I  Cor.  1.  The  so-called  2d  epistle  of  the  same  author 
appeals  (ch.  xii.)  to  a  passage  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians.  Justin 
(§  294)  quotes  (Cohort.,  xvi.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii.  ;  Apol.  L,  xx.,  xliv.)  the  Sibyl 
and  Hystaspes.  Irenjeus  (IV.  20,  p.  253  ;  cf.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  V.  8)  com- 
mends the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  as  ypa(t>ri.  All  the  Apocrypha  mentioned 
and  still  others  (Sermon  and  Apocalyjjse  of  Peter,  Traditions  of  Matthias, 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews),  together  with  Barnabas  and  Clement  of  Rome,  are 
quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom.,  I.  356  ;  II.  375,  380,  410;  III. 
452  f.,  465  ;  V.  575  ;  VI.  635  f.,  678,  etc.)  as  apostolic  witnesses.  Cf.  the 
indices  to  his  works,  and  Euseb.,  VI.  14.  Tertullian,  De  habitu  mul.,  ch.  iii., 
makes  a  long  apology  for  the  Book  of  Enoch.  The  Sibyls  in  particular 
(§  274)  were  long  regarded  as  inspired  prophetesses.  G.  Besan^on,  De 
Vusage  que  les  Peres  font  des  oracles  sib.,  Mont.  1851. 

294.  Possibly  the  exegetical  abuses  of  the  Gnostics  in  part 
only  confirmed  the  Catholic  teachers  still  more  in  their  exclu- 
sive dependence  upon  the  dogmatic  tradition  of  their  Church, 


EARLY  APPEAL  TO  APOSTOLIC  WRITINGS.  299 

and  upon  argument  from  the  Old  Testament,  Yet  they  might 
also  have  the  opposite  effect,  and  lead  them  to  busy  them- 
selves more  earnestly  with  the  writings  of  the  Apostles.  How- 
ever that  may  have  been,  it  is  not  until  after  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  that  direct  appeals  to  them  become  more  fre- 
quent, then  chiefly  to  Gospels,  but  at  first  still  with  complete 
freedom  in  the  choice  of  them.  No  witness  of  this  period 
knows  any  collection  of  New  Testament  writings,  even  a  pro- 
visional and  incomplete  one.  Yet  the  regular  public  reading 
of  certain  books,  especially  Gospels,  had  doubtless  begun  at 
that  time,  as  well  as  those  Epistles  which  had  been  originally 
received  by  individual  churches. 

The  first  statement  is  confirmed,  for  example,  by  the  method  of  Tertul- 
lian,  cf.  his  utterances,  Prcescr.  hcer.,  ch.  xiv.  (§  515). 

Justin  Martyr  (f  167)  quotes  by  name  (beside  some  Apocrypha,  §  293) 
only  the  Apocalypse  of  John  (Trap'  tjimv  avrjp  rts  ^  uvo/j-a  'luidvvrjs  eh  twv  anoa- 
t6\uv  tov  Xpiarov,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  ch.  81)  and  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (?).  On 
the  character  of  his  gospel  quotations  see  under  §  199.  So  far  as  we  are 
able  to  compare  them  with  our  texts,  most  of  them  point  to  Matthew;  but 
he  also  expressly  quotes  some  passages  which  are  only  found  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  103, 106,  —  the  latter  as  from  a  pupil  of  the  Apostles. 
He  is  silent  as  to  Paid  and  the  Gospel  of  John,  save  some  very  isolated  allu- 
sions to  them,  or  rather  echoes  of  their  diction.  With  respect  to  these,  how- 
ever (especially  with  respect  to  their  theological  contents),  it  might  still  be 
disputed  whether  they  came  from  reading,  or  whether,  if  so,  they  would  not 
prove  that  the  author  ascribed  no  very  high  authority  to  them.  (Kirchhofer, 
I.  c,  pp.  146,  184  ;  Otto,  in  Illgen's  Zeiischr.,  1841,  ll.  ;  1842,  II.  ;  1843,  I.; 
D.  F.  Zastrau,  De  Jui^tini  M.  biblicis  studiis,  Br.  1831;  Volkmar,  Justin  u.  d. 
Evv.,  p.  12  ff.  ;  H.  D.  Tjeenk  Willink,  Justinus  M.  in  zij'ne  verhouding  tot 
Paulus,  ZwoU.  1867.)  His  theory  of  inspiration  extends  only  to  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Apocalyjjses,  and  his  theological  reasoning  is  founded 
upon  the  proof  that  the  gospel  facts  attested  by  the  "  Memorabilia  of  the 
Apostles "  are  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  Old  Testament  prophecies. 
(Apol.  I.,  30,  53;  Tryph.,  32.)  An  anti-Pauline  tendency  (e.  g.,  Tryph.,  35) 
and  a  holding  fast  to  the  number  twelve  for  the  Apostles  (ibid.,  42).  First 
mention  of  the  public  reading  of  the  Gospels  in  Sunday  assemblies  (Apol.  I., 
67) :  TO  a,TroiJ,vr]fA.ovei/j,aTa  twv  aTro(TT6\(tiv  f)  ra  avyypdfxjxara  twv  irpo^rjrwv  avayi- 
v<i)(XK€Tai  /xe'xpiJ  eyxi^pe7.  See  Gieseler,  Entstehung  der  Evv.,  p.  142  if.  Inspira- 
tion of  the  Septuagint  (Apol.  I.,  61). 

Epistle  to  Diognetus,  c.  135  A.  d.  (usually  placed  with  the  works  of  Justin  (in 
favor  of  which,  after  the  example  of  several,  though  not  without  opposition, 
Otto,  De  ep.  ad  Diogn.,  Jena,  1845),  also  in  Patrum  apost.  opp.,  ed.  Hefele, 
1842),  quotes,  in  ch.  12,  a  passage  from  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
in  ch.  11  finds  the  ideal  of  the  church  where  (j)Sl3os  vofiov  aSerat,  koI  ■Kpo<l)-nj6ov 
X«pis  yivcitTKeTut,  Kal  evayye\iujy  ttIcttls  'ISpvrai,  koI  aTToaroXoiv  irapaSoais  ^uAacrtreTai, 
in  which  certainly  it  is  not  the  Epistles  but  tradition  that  is  placed  by  the 
side  of  the  written  Gospels.  Moreover,  precisely  these  chapters  are  regarded 
by  criticism  as  a  later  interpolation.  In  tlie  genuine  portions  (chs.  5,  6,  9), 
there  are  echoes  of  apostolic  words  and  thoughts  (Paul,  John,  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount),  but  no  quotations.  Cf.  also  Quartalschr.,  1825,  p.  444  ;  C. 
D.  a  Grossheim,  De  ep.  ad  Diogn.,  L.  1828  ;  G.  I.  Snoeck,  Introd.  in  ep.  ad 
Diogn.,  Leyd.  1861. 

In  Hernias  (§  275)  traces  of  reading  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  Paul,  and 


300  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

1  Peter.  The  sicut  scriptum  est  occurs  only  with  reference  to  an  apocryphal 
writing.     (I.  vision  2,  ch.  3.) 

Hegesippiis,  about  160,  brings  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  to  Rome,  ap- 
parently without  offense  and  with  the  consciousness  of  full  community  of 
faith,  which  was  therefore  at  all  events  independent  of  an  official  canon,  and 
appeals  in  general  (Euseb.,  IV.  22)  to  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Lord, 
not  to  apostolic  writings.  Cf.  the  following  section.  Schulthess,  Symh.  crit., 
I.  ;  Schwegler,  Nachap.  Zeitalter,!.  343  ;  Weizsiicker,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.; 
T.  Jess,  in  the  Zeitschr.  fUr  hist.  TheoL,  18C5,  I. 

Melito  of  Sardis  (c.  IGO)  instructed  himself  and  his  brother  Onesimus  by 
the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  and  Christological  extracts  made  therefrom. 
On  the  New  Testament  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  IV.  2G)  appears  to  have  found 
nothing  in  his  works  except  a  writing  on  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  which  was 
thus  the  first  apostolic  book  made  by  a  Catholic  the  subject  of  Christian 
discussion.  —  In  his  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  Esther  is 
lacking  and  Nehemiah  is  included  with  Ezra  ;  the  Minor  Prophets  stand  in 
the  midst  of  the  Major.  Cf.  F.  Piper,  Melito  {Studien,  1838,  I.  54  ff.)  ; 
Corpus  apologetarum,  ed.  Otto,  IX.  374  ft'.,  439. 

A  fragment  of  his  contemporary,  Claudius  Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis,  has 
been  preserved  {Chron.  pasch.,  p.  13,  ed.  Dindorf),  in  which,  by  appeal  to 
gospel  writings  (John)  the  view  is  maintained,  against  those  who  held  to  the 
Synoptic  account,  that  Jesus  did  not  keep  the  Jewish  Passover  before  his 
death. 

Dionysius  of  Corinth  (c.  170)  informs  the  Romans  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  IV.  23) 
that  at  Corinth  the  epistles  of  Clement  and  Soter,  their  bishops,  were  read 
to  his  church  on  Sunday.  Therefore  no  doubt  those  of  Paul  also  ?  He 
complains  of  the  corruption  of  his  writings,  and  consoles  himself  by  the  fact 
that  it  had  fared  no  better  with  the  KvpiaKoi  ypa^aX  (the  Gospels  ?)  though 

TOlaVTM. 

Athenagoras  (f  177)  appeals  for  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  to 
the  Old  Testament,  quotes  once  {De  resurrec,  ch.  18,  0pp.,  Oxf.  1682,  ed. 
Otto,  1857)  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  in  his  Apology  some 
sentences  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Reminiscences  from  Romans, 
Galatians,  1  Timothy  {Legat.,  chs.  13,  16,  37)  ;  also  apocryphal  words  of 
Jesus  (ibidem,  ch.  32). 

The  most  frequent  allusions,  and  giving  evidence  of  a  greater  number  of 
writings,  are  contained  in  the  letter  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons 
(of  the  year  177,  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  V.  1) :  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  Philip- 
pians,  both  to  Timothy,  First  of  Peter,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Gospel  of  John 
(6  Kvpios)  and  Apocalypse,  which  last  is  expressly  quoted  as  ypatpij.  May  not 
Irenieus,  the  famous  bishop  of  Lyons,  have  written  this  ?  —  Cf .  also  the 
Martyrium  Polycarpi,  printed  \vith  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and  Eusebius,  H, 
E.,  IV.  15. 

295.  As  soon  as  the  first  impulse  had  been  given,  men 
learned  to  recognize  the  value  of  these  memorials  for  Christian 
knowledge  and  Christian  life  more  and  more  fully,  and  to  prize 
them  more  and  more  highly.  In  particular,  the  necessity  of 
finding  new  and  stouter  weapons  against  heresy  led  theolo- 
gians more  and  more  to  the  study  of  the  doctrinal  writings  of 
the  Apostles.  Long  since,  too,  custom  and  the  wrangling  of 
schools  had  brought  their  minds  down  and  out  of  tliat  unaf- 
fected enthusiasm  which  had  once  given  them  so  much  power 
in  themselves.  The  intoxication  of  overstrained  hopes  had  de- 
parted amid  the  pressure  of  an  earnest  and  often  gU)omy  presen  1, 


COORDINATION  OF  APOSTOLIC  WRITINGS  WITH  O.  T.    301 

and  those  whose  ardor  was  not  wholly  chilled  by  the  awaken- 
ing to  sober  reality  were  glad  to  refresh  themselves  by  return- 
ing in  thought  to  a  happier  time,  which  its  increasing  distance 
painted  in  colors  ever  more  splendid.  The  farther  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem  receded  before  the  longing  eyes  of  the  Church,  the 
more  glorious  to  its  remembrance  became  the  earthly  and 
whatever  had  once  proceeded  from  it. 

Hegesippus,  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  III.  32:  /xexpi  roSv  rare  xp^"^"  TrapOivos  Ka- 
Oapa  ffjLdv^v  Tj  iKKKricria  .  .  .  ds  5'  6  iephs  twv  awoa-ToKiiiv  X'^P"^  elA?7<pci  rov  ^iov 
TeAoj-  .  .  .  TTiviKavTa  t^s  a,9eov  irAaj'Tjy  tV  apxVf  i^dixl3avev  r]  (TvcTTacns  5ia  rrjs  tQv 
erepoSiSaaKaXcvv  ciTraTTjs,  k.  t.  A.  Admitting"  the  facts  to  be  as  here  represented, 
—  and  even  this  can  be  done  only  with  limitations,  —  the  causal  relation  of 
them  is  based  upon  a  mistake  very  easily  corrected  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself,  but  which  must  naturally  have  contributed  to  this  transforma- 
tion of  theological  methods  (cf.  Jess,  I.  c,  p.  60  ft".). 

And  when  in  the  consciousness  of  believers  the  Apostles  had  once  gained 
a  place  by  the  side  of  the  Prophets  as  bearers  of  the  Spirit,  it  was  but  a  step 
farther  to  ascribe  to  their  writings  a  similar  authority  (Landerer,  in  Her- 
zog's  Encykl.,  VII.  273  f.).  Only  the  glory  which  soon  surrounded  both 
the  men  and  the  books  was  not  always  the  retiection  of  the  light  shed  by  the 
latter,  but  mostly  that  of  the  once  clear  but  now  obscure  twilight  of  tra- 
dition. 

But  beside  this  there  came  also,  called  forth  by  the  reaction  against  the 
practice  of  the  Gnostics  (§  292),  a  stricter  adherence  to  tradition,  appealing, 
to  be  sure,  to  the  Apostles  as  the  original  authorities,  but  not  exclusively 
and  directly  to  their  wi-itings  for  its  own  authentication  ;  cf.  §  51-5.  But 
these  latter  must,  in  the  course  of  time,  have  been  placed  higher  and  higher 
by  discerning  minds,  as  they  were  distinguished  more  and  more  clearly  in 
spirit,  contents,  and  form,  from  the  later  literature. 

296.  It  is  furthermore  to  be  expressly  noted  that  the  Church, 
went  to  work  in  this  portion  of  its  dogmatic  development  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  apostolic  writings  were  placed  higher  and 
higher  in  authority  and  dignit}^,  until  they  at  last  came  to  be  on 
a  level  with  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  this  very  move- 
ment may  be  recognized  as  in  a  twofold  respect  the  result  of 
the  final  formation  of  a  Catholic  Church,  uniting  in  peace 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.  For,  in  order  that  this  might 
take  place,  not  only  must  the  living  consciousness  of  the  op- 
position between  letter  and  spirit  in  general  first  be  obscured, 
but  also,  in  particular,  the  revelation  of  the  Old  Covenant 
must  be  regarded  as  formally  complete  and  authoritative, 
which  Paul  and  his  contemporaries  had  denied. 

According  to  the  common  conception,  advocated  especially  by  the  Prot- 
estant theology,  but  running  counter  to  all  history,  we  must  think  the  re- 
verse, that  if  any  exertion  was  necessary  to  attain  the  end,  it  must  have  been 
to  maintain  the  Old  Testament  on  a  level  with  the  New,  which  from  the  first 
had  absolute  authority.  But  even  the  antinomian  Gnosis  never  contended 
in  the  name  and  in  favor  of  a  canon  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  Tlie 
Gospel  was  doubtless  from  the  beginning  placed  above  the  Law,  and  Christ 
above  Moses,  but  not  the  written  preaching  of  the  former  above  written 


302  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

prophecy.     TertuU.,  De  pudic,  cli.  xii.  :  Nos  in  apostohs  quoque  veieris  legis 
fqrmam  salutamus. 

The  other  important  element  in  this  development  —  the  recognition  by 
each  of  the  two  old  parties  of  the  writings  of  those  Apostles  who  were  pre- 
ferred by  the  other  —  was  then  easily  accomplished  as  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  foregoing.  Refusal  to  enter  into  this  union  was  a  sign  of  heresy. 
Of  a  formal  agreement  to  this  effect,  however  (Augusti,  Handh.  d.  ArchdoL, 
II.  177),  there  is  nowhere  anything  said. 

297.  This  advance  in  the  religious  consciousness,  by  which 
the  first  Apostles  were  placed  upon  a  level  with  the  prophets, 
and  their  writings  came  to  be  regarded  as  products  of  a  special 
inspiration,  bestowed  upon  them  alone,  was  completed  toward 
the  end  of  the  second  century.  The  earliest  trace  of  such  a 
coordination  of  the  two  classes  of  books  and  at  the  same  time 
of  an  actual  collection  of  apostolic  writings  is  found  in  the  so- 
called  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  Among  the  ecclesiastical 
writers,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  and  after  him  Irenseus,  Ter- 
tuUian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  may  be  regarded  as  the 
first  and  best  known  representatives  of  this  new  tendency, 
provided  it  be  well  understood  that  always  and  everywhere 
Scripture  and  tradition,  regarded  as  equally  authentic  and  thor- 
oughly harmonious  witnesses,  constitute  the  common  source  of 
knowledge  and  rule  of  doctrine. 

2  Pet.  iii.  15  :  HavAos  .  .  .  eypa\pev  v/xiv,  ais  Koi  iv  traffais  toas  iTricrroXais  .  .  • 
ev  ais  iffTi  Svavo7]Td  TLva  &  ol  a/j.a6e^s  crTpel3\ovcnp  iis  koI  ray  Xoinas  ypaiias.  ...  A 
quotation  which  is  all  the  more  noteworthy  here  because  it  is  only  true  in 
this  abstract  general  sense. 

Theophilus  (c.  180),  Ad  Autolycum  (ed.  Wolf,  Hamb.  1724  ;  ed.  Otto, 
Jena,  1861),  iii.  11  ff. :  coordination,  in  theory  and  argumentation,  of  the  pro- 
phetic and  apostolic  writings,  S<a  rh  rohs  -rrduTas  irvfvfji.aTO(l>6povs  tvl  iri/ev/xaTi  dead 
AeAoAr/KeVaj,  in  reality  a  narrowing  of  the  New  Testament  principle,  §  285  ; 
cf.  also  ii.  9,  33,  35.  Quotations  from  Paul  with  the  formula  6  OeTos  Aoyos 
and  the  like  (iii.  14).  First  express  appeal  by  a  Catholic  writer  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  John  (ii.  22  :  trdfres  oi  ■irvivfxaT6i>opoi  e|  S>v  '\wdvv7)s\  beside  Matthew  and 
single  Pauline  Epistles  ;  according  to  Eusebius  {H.  E.,  iv.  24)  also  the  Apoc- 
alypse. Cf.  C.  Otto,  Gebrauch  7ieutest.  Schriften  bei  Tlieoph.  v.  Ant.,  in  the 
Zeitschr.  fur  hist.  TheoL,  1859,  IV. 

IrenfEus,  Bishop  of  Lyons  (f  202),  Adv.  Hcer.  (§  514),  III.  1  :  evangelium 
quod  tunc  pneconaverunt  postea  per  Dei  voluntatem  in  scripturis  nolis  tradide- 
runt  fundamentum  et  columnam  Jidei  nostrce  futurum.  Ibid.,  ch.  21,  p.  216  : 
Unua  et  idem  Spiritus  in  prophetls  prceconavit  adventum  Domini,  in  seniorihus 
(LXX.)  bene  interpretatus  est  et  in  apostolis  annunciavit  plenitudinem  temporum 
venisse,  which,  to  be  sure,  in  an  earlier  writer,  and  in  the  lack  of  clear  paral- 
lel passages,  would  not  necessarily  be  referred  to  the  apostolic  writings. 
Gospel  (N.  T.)  and  Prophets  (O.  T.),  are  universce  scripturce,  II.  27.  Truth 
(I.  8,  p.  35)  is  %v  -Kpo^riTaL  iK7}pv^ai',  6  Kvpios  eSiSa^ey,  ol  air6(Tro\oi  irapeSaiKav.  — 
For  his  conception  of  the  rights  of  tradition,  see,  among  other  passages,  III. 
4,  1,  2  ;  24,  1  ;  IV.  26,  5;  32,  1.  Cf.  in  general,  A.  Kayser,  Uopinion 
d'Iren.  sur  le  siecle  apostolique,  in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  VI.  321  ;  C.  Graul,  Die 
chr.  Kirche  an  der  Sckwelle  des  irenceischen  Zeitalters,  1860,  p.  119  ff.  ;  Lip- 
sius  (§  288). 

Tertullian,  presbyter  at  Carthage  (f  c.  223),     Old  and  New  Testaments 


EARLIEST   COLLECTIONS.  303 

(  =  Scriptura  simply)  furnish  proof  passages  indiscriminately.  Connection  of 
Scripture  with  tradition  ;  Adv.  Marcionem,  IV.  5  ;  Si  constat  id  verius  quod 
prius,  id  prius  quod  ab  initio,  id  ab  initio  quod  ab  apostolis,  pariter  utique  con- 
stabit  id  esse  ab  apostolis  traditum  quod  apud  ecclesius  apostolorum  fuerit  sacro- 
sanctum.  Videamus  quod  lac  a  Paulo  Corinthii  hauserint,  ad  quain  regulam 
Galatce  sint  recorrecti,  quid  legant  Philippenses,  etc.  De  Prcescr.,  ch.  36  : 
percurre  ecclesias  apost.  apud  quas  ipsce  adhuc  cathedrce  apostolorum  suis  locis 
prcesidentur,  apud  quas  authenticce  literce  eoruni  recitantur,  etc.,  cf .  ch.  20  ff .,  ch. 
37  f .  These  passages,  the  latter  of  which  appears  to  know  as  yet  no  gene- 
ral public  use  of  the  Epistles,  state  the  only  valid  ground  of  recognition  for 
doctrine  and  Scripture  alike.  Cf.  §  290.  The  fact  that  elsewhere  in  his 
writings  Montanistic  ideas  break  over  the  limits  of  a  dogmatic  conception  of 
inspiration  which  confines  it  to  the  Apostles  alone  does  not  signify  here,  — 
the  less  since  the  latter  is  sufficiently  attested  and  the  former  were  already 
regarded  as  heretical.  From  the  time  of  TertuUiau  even  the  idea  of  canou- 
icity  is  attached  more  strictly  to  the  names  of  the  Apostles.  Hence  the 
Gospels  of  Luke  and  Mark  are  expressly  referred  to  Peter  and  Paul. 
Adv.  Marcionem,  IV.  2,  5. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (f  217),  Strom.,  III.,  p.  455  (ed.  Sylburg,  Cologne, 
1688,  fol.)  :  vo/xos  T€  'd/xou  Kal  Trpo4>TJrai  avv  t^  evayyfKicji  if  6i'6fxaTi  Xpicrrov  eis 
(jdav  (Tvvdyoi'Tai  yvwffiv.  V.  561  :  rh  evayyeAtov  Ka\  ol  airScTToKoi  bj-ioiocs  rais 
■7rpo(p7}rais  iracn.  Cf.  VI.  659,  676  ;  VII.  757.  All  three  sources  together, 
ot  ypa.i>a.(,  IV.  475.  And  in  view  of  the  many  quotations  from  the  Ejnstles  it 
is  not  to  be  doubted  that  by  the  /xaKupiov  evayye\iou  are  to  be  understood  the 
apostolic  writings  in  general.  The  fact  that  Clement  was  more  of  a  philos- 
opher than  a  churchman  does  not  prevent  him  from  connecting  Scripture 
and  tradition  (Strom.,  VII.  762  f.),  and  making  the  latter  the  basis  of  his 
exegesis. 

Important  contemporaneous  phenomenon  of  an  increasing  accuracy  in 
quoting.  Mention  of  regular  public  readings,  probably  also  of  the  New 
Testament :  Tertull.,  ApoL,  ch.  xxxix.:  cogimur  ad  literarum  divinarum  com- 
memoratio7iem  si  quid  prcesentium  tcmporum  qualitas  aut  prcemonere  cogit  aut 
recognoscere.  De  anima,  ch.  ix,  :  scriptures  leguntur,  psalmi  canuntur,  adlocu- 
tiones  proferuntur.  Ad  uxor.,  ii.  6.  In  the  same  author,  De  prmscr.  hceret.,  ch. 
xli.,  also  the  office  of  reader  {lector),  together  with  the  older  church  offices. 

The  separate  quotations  are  introduced  as  utterances  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  must  be  expressly  borne  in  mind  in  this  connection  that  there  is  nowhere 
anything  said  of  an  abandonment  of  the  LXX.  in  favor  of  the  original  He- 
brew text.  On  the  contrary  the  higher  inspiration  is  claimed  for  the  latter 
likewise.     See  above,  Irenseus,  and  §  299. 

298.  Such  a  dogmatic  revolution,  however  gradually  and 
imperceptibly  it  may  have  come  about,  must  have  had  im- 
portant results  for  the  literature  itself,  and  must  have  caused 
a  more  active  scrutiny  and  sifting  of  the  collection  of  apostolic 
writings.  Upon  the  latter  point  the  decision  was  made,  next 
to  the  doctrinal  contents,  upon  the  basis  of  the  testimony  of 
the  oldest  churches.  Asia  Minor  was  probably  the  cradle  of 
the  New  Testament  collection,  unless  one  prefers  to  assume 
that  it  may  have  been  attempted,  as  a  necessity  of  the  time,  at 
different  places  at  once.  However  that  may  be,  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  Alexandria, 
and  West  Africa,  of  which  the  three  famous  writers  last  men- 
tioned may  be  regarded  as  the   spokesmen,  appeared   to   be 


304  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

agreed  in  the  acceptance  of  our  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  tlie 
Apostles,  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  one  of  Peter,  one  of  John, 
and  the  Revelation. 

The  reasons  for  a  priority  on  the  part  of  Asia  Minor  would  be  not  so 
much  the  example  of  Marciou  as  the  greater  need  on  account  of  the  greater 
power  of  opposing  tendencies  ;  but  especially  the  fact  that  most  of  the  apos- 
tolic writings  were  written  in  or  chiefly  for  Asia  Minor. 

Irenjeus  in  a  certain  sense  bears  witness  also  for  Western  Europe,  since 
although  by  birth  an  Asiatic,  by  official  position  he  belongs  to  the  Gallic 
Church.  For  Greece  witnesses  of  this  period  are  wanting.  Palestine  has 
already  receded  quite  into  the  background,  and  probably  had  little  or  no 
part  in  the  development  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  its  canon  of  the  Scrip- 
tures.    With  respect  to  Rome  see  §  310. 

But  how  long  before  the  end  of  the  second  century  an  actual  collection, 
t.  e.,  a  writing  together  of  all  these  books,  was  undertaken  and  brought  to 
completion  must  remain  undecided. 

The  fact  is  to  be  especially  emphasized  that  our  four  Gospels  at  this  time 
already  appear  as  a  closed  collection,  clearly  excluding  all  increase  or  diminu- 
tion (Iren.,  HI.  11,  8,  rh  reTpdfjLop<i>ov  eiiayyeMov,  with  a  purely  scholastic  justi- 
fication or  establishment  of  the  number.  Clement  of  Alex.,  Strom.,  III.  465  ; 
TertulL,  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  2  fe.;  Origen,  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  VI.  14,  and  Horn. 
1  in  Luc,  0pp.,  V.  87,  L.;  Jerome,  Prcef.  ad  Damas.,  etc.). 

299.  But  this  noteworthy  agreement  of  several  important  and 
widely  separated  churches  as  to  the  origin  and  authority  of  a 
certain  number  of  writings  had  no  legal  character  whatever, 
and  did  not  rest  upon  the  decision  of  a  council  or  other  ecclesi- 
astical power.  There  is  not  even  a  catalogue  of  the  books  re- 
garded as  divine  to  be  found  anywhere  in  these  writers  ;  on 
the  contrary  the  judgment  and  choice  were  so  entirely  free 
that  individual  taste  frequently  even  mistook  the  fundamental 
principle,  —  that  of  regarding  the  writings  of  the  immediate 
disciples  of  tlie  Lord  alone  as  inspired.  When  no  indubitable 
tradition  existed  one  might  reject  with  disgust  wdiat  another 
admired  and  praised,  without  the  violation  of  any  ecclesiastical 
ordinance  on  either  side. 

In  Irenseus,  beside  the  above-mentioned  writings,  quotations  are  found 
from  the  Second  Epistle  of  John,  which,  however,  appears  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  First,  III.  16,  5.  Cf.  I.  16,  3  (also  from  the  Shepherd,  §  293). 
He  is  said  also  to  have  used  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  not  as  a  Pau- 
line writing.  (Stephanus  Gobarus,  in  Photius,  Bibl.  cod.,  232).  The  First 
Epistle  of  Peter  is  little  mentioned.  Cf.  in  general  on  bis  canon  the  (incom- 
plete) information  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  V.  8,  26  ;  Deyling,  Ohss.  misc.,  p.  10  ; 
Siisskind,  in  Flatt's  Magazin,  VI.  95  ff.  ;  Otto,  in  lUgen's  Zeitschr.,  1844, 
III.  ;  A.  Kayser  (§  297). 

Tertullian's  principle  is  to  recognize  only  proper  apostolic  writings.  But 
especially  important  is  his  method,  in  the  treatment  of  particular  dogmatic 
propositions,  of  going  through  the  apostolic  writings  in  their  order,  by  which 
his  silence  respecting  particular  books  becomes  much  more  significant.  Thus, 
De  resurr.  carnis,  ch.  xxxiii.  ff.,  only  the  Gospels,  Apocaly2:)se,  Acts,  and  Pau- 
line Epistles  are  mentioned  ;  likewise  De  pudicit.,  ch.  vi.  fP.,  where  the  Mrrit- 
iugs  of  John  stand  at  the  end  (Apocalypse  and  First  Epistle),  and  over  and 


EARLIEST  COLLECTIONS  — DIVISIONS.  305 

above  (ex  redundantia)  Barnabas  is  also  introduced,  i.  e.,  our  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  vvliom  he  does  not  adduce  as  authority,  as  he  says,  but  still  opposes 
to  the  apocrijphus  pastor  moschorum  (ch.  xx.).  Cf.  also  the  enumeration,  De 
fuga  in  pers.,  ch.  vi.  ft'.  Beside  these  he  knows  the  Epistle  of  Jude  (but  prob- 
ably not  yet  in  the  collection),  De  habitu  mid.,  ch.  iii.  The  First  Epistle  of 
Peter  only  occurs  in  the  suspicious  Scorpiax  adv.   Gnost.,  ch.  xii.  ft. 

Clement  (on  his  quotations  see  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  VI.  13,  II)  knows  likewise 
the  Epistle  of  Jude  and  the  Second  of  John,  also  that  of  Paul  to  the  He- 
brews, which  Luke  is  said  to  have  translated  into  the  Greek. 

That  he  also  treated  as  apostolic  books  James,  2  Peter,  and  3  John,  of 
which  neither  in  him  nor  in  the  other  two  are  any  traces  now  to  be  found, 
may  certainly  be  inferred  from  the  account  of  Eusebius,  here  very  superfi- 
cial. 

These  theologians  also  quote  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
sacred,  inspired  books,  both  the  separate  writings,  as  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon and  Sirach  (Clem.  IV.  515  ;  V.  683  ;  Tertull.,  Adv.  ValenL,  ii.  ;  Ex- 
hort, castit.  ii.),  and  the  additions  of  the  Greek  recension  to  Daniel  and  Jere- 
miah (Iren.,  IV.  5,  p.  232  ;  V.  35,  p.  335  ;  Clem.,  P(ed.,  II.  IGl). 

300.  This  original  collection,  though  it  had  no  very  fixed 
and  definite  bounds,  was  usually  divided  into  two  pai'ts.  The 
first,  already  closed,  and  regarded  as  in  a  certain  sense  su- 
perior, comprised  the  four  Gospels,  and  was  called  simply  the 
Gospel.  The  second,  not  yet  closed,  and  more  subordinate, 
contained  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  and  was  called  the  Apostle. 
The  division  and  names  appear  first  in  the  writings  of  these 
three  much  mentioned  authors  and  disappear  perhaps  a  cen- 
tury later.  Everything  seems  to  indicate  that  the  two  divis- 
ions originally  formed  separate  collections  and  arose  indepen- 
dently of  each  other,  as  was  the  case  also  with  the  sacred  books 
of  the  synagogue. 

ToL  eiiayyeMK^  Kol  ra  airocrToXiKoi,  Iren.,  Adv.  hcer.,  I.  3,  p.  17  ;  rh  tvayyeXiov^ 
6  airSa-ToAos,  Clem.,  Strom.,  VII.  706  ;  instrumentum,  evangelicum,  apostoUcum, 
Tertull.,  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  2  ;  idem,  De pudic,  ch.  xii.;  evangelium,apostolus, 
idem,  De  bapt.,  ch.  xv.  ;  evangelicce,  apostolicce  literce,  idem,  De  prcescr.,  ch. 
xxxvi.  ;  instrumentum  Moysi,  propheticum  {Adv.  Hermog.,  xix.  ;  De  resurr. 
carnis,  xxxiii.)  ;  instrumentum  loannis,  Pauli  (De  resurr.  carnis,  xxxviii., 
xxxix.)  ;  instrumentum  actorum  (Adv.  Marc.,  V.  2).  The  latter  designations 
are  especially  fitted  to  show  the  late  union  of  the  separate  elements.  Cf. 
also  Griesbach,  Hist,  textus  epp.  paulin.  (0pp.,  II.  88). 

Whether  the  division  and  names  were  borrowed  from  Marcion  (Bertholdt, 
I.  105  ;  Eichhorn,  IV.  25  ;  Schott,  p.  552)  may  be  very  much  doubted.  On 
the  contrary,  the  simplest  designation  points  to  a  time  when  the  second  col- 
lection consisted  of  nothing  but  Pauline  epistles.  Hence  <5  airoaToKos,  in  the 
singular.  Pseudo-Origen,  De  recta  in  deum  fide  ( 0pp.,  xvi.  309,  Lomm.)  : 
Tjixels  trXiov  tov  €vayye\lou  Kal  tov  airoaroKov  oil  SeX'^M*^"-  ^^  ^^^  expression  in- 
strumentum,  cf .  §  303. 

That  the  first  division  was  regarded  as  the  more  important  is  shown  (1.) 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  earlier  completed  in  the  consciousness  of  the 
Church  ;  (2.)  from  the  fact  that  the  Gospels  were  earlier  used  for  public 
readings,  cf .  Justin's  evidence,  §  294,  and  the  oldest  Lectionarium  Romanum ; 
(3.)  from  the  fact  that  ehayyeKiov  was  the  earliest  name  for  the  complete  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament.     §  297. 


306  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

301.  In  the  second  part  of  the  collection,  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  were  easily  distinguished  from  those  of  the  other  Apos- 
tles, which,  originally,  had  a  less  restricted  destination  and 
were  therefore  commonly  called  Catholic,  i.  e.  general,  epistles. 
This  name  might  also  be  applied  to  some  other  epistles  which 
came  into  the  collection  later,  but  it  finally  designated  simply 
all  that  were  not  Pauline,  without  regard  to  the  original  sense 
of  the  word,  and  even  in  direct  contradiction  to  it.  This  usage, 
as  finally  established  wholly  unscientific  and  false,  is  explained 
therefore  from  the  simple  fact  that  the  increasing  number  of 
epistles  admitted  into  the  collection  made  necessary  a  division 
of  them  into  two  books. 

The  name  KadoXiKol  eVio-ToAa/  has  been  diiferently  explained.  See  in  gen- 
eral, Schott,  Jsag.,  p.  371  ff.;  Suicer,  Thes.  eccles.,  sub  voce  ;  W.  C.  L.  Ziegler, 
De  sensu  nominis  epp.  cath.  earumque  numero  in  vet.  eccl.,  Rost.  1807  ;  Mayer- 
hoif,  Einl.  in  die  petrinischen  Schriften,  p.  31  ;  Liicke,  in  the  Studien,  1836, 
III. 

According  to  the  oldest  usage,  the  greater  extension  of  the  original  circle 
of  readers  —  destination  to  the  Church  in  general  —  is  always  meant  by  the 
term.  Thus  the  First  Epistle  of  John  is  called  the  catholic  epistle,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  other  two  (Dion.  Alex.,  in  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  VII.  25  ; 
Origen,  passim)  ;  so  the  epistle  of  the  convention  of  the  Apostles  in  Acts  xv. 
(Clement,  Strom.,  IV.  512)  ;  that  of  Barnabas  (Origen,  Con.  Cels.,  I.  63). 
In  any  case  this  designation  arose  at  a  time  when  the  consciousness  of  the 
local  destination  of  the  other  epistles  was  still  lively.  Cf .  §  287.  It  does 
not  occur  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  (§  310),  where  the  remark  is  made  that 
althougli  it  is  true  that  Paid  wrote  especially  to  seven  churches,  ima  tamen 
per  omnem  terrce  orhem  ecdesia  diffusa  esse  denoscitur,  and  his  epistles  are 
therefore  for  all  Christians,  et  Joha7ines  in  Apocalypsi  licet  septem  ecclesiis 
scribal  tamen  omnibus  dicit.  No  further  class  of  Catholic  Epistles  is  here 
made. 

In  the  widest  sense  the  term  occurs  for  the  first  time  in  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  II. 
23  ;  VI.  14.  The  two  minor  epistles  of  John,  when  they  were  attached  as 
an  appendix  to  the  greater  one,  had  no  influence  upon  the  designation  of  the 
collection.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  and  of  itself  a  catholic  epistle, 
is  never  numbered  with  them,  because  it  only  came  into  the  collection  as 
Pauline.  Leontius,  De  sectis,  ch.  ii.  (6th  cent.),  still  knows  the  original 
meaning  :  KaOoAtKol  €K\r)6riaai'  iireiSav  ov  irphs  ev  idvos  eypd<t>7](rav,  ws  al  rod  Ila6\oVy 
aWa,  Kad6\ov  wphs  iravTa.  And  this  is  repeated  by  (Ecumenius  (10th  cent.) 
Prol.  in  ep.  Jac.  A  scholiast  on  the  Epistle  of  James,  in  Coutelier,  Prcef.  in 
Barnab.,  declares  that  this  Epistle  stands  at  the  head  of  the  collection,  Sri  ttjs 
Tlerpov  KadoMnwrepa  ecrrt,  to  judge  from  the  subscription  of  the  two. 

The  Catholic  Epistles  are  not  so-called  because  they  were  intended  to  be 
received  by  both  Jewish  and  GentUe  Chi-istians  (Augusti,  Handh.,  II.  178)  ; 
nor  because  it  was  desired  to  designate  them  as  apostolic  in  distinction  from 
the  disputed  ones  (Eichhorn,  Einl.,  III.  559).  In  favor  of  the  latter  view 
could  be  adduced  only  the  much  later  Latin  usage  according  to  which  they 
are  called  Epistolce  canonicce,  first  found  (Pseudo-Jerome,  Prolog,  in  epp.  can.) 
in  Cassiodorus,  Divin.  lect.,  ch.  viii.  The  use  of  KaGoXiKhs  in  the  sense  of 
orthodox  is  older,  but  is  never  applied  specially  to  the  Epistles  here  meant, 
but  to  the  apostolic  literature  in  general  ;  cf.  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  III.  3  ;  and 
even  to  the  non-apostolic,  IV.  23..  That  Eusebius  cannot  have  connected 
with  this  word  the  idea  of  general  recognition  (canonicity)  is  shown  incon- 


EARLY  COLLECTIONS  — ORDER  OF  BOOKS.      307 

testably  by  II.  23,  where  several  epistles  are  enumerated  as  Catholic  but  dis- 
puted. 

302.  The  order  of  the  Apostolic  books,  in  a  lai'ger  or  pro- 
fessedly complete  collection  of  them,  was  variously  and  very 
arbitrarily  hxed.  It  depended  in  part  upon  chronological 
presuppositions,  as  in  the  case  of  the  usual  order  of  the  four 
Gospels,  in  part  was  connected  with  the  rank  assigned  to  the 
authors,  as  is  probably  the  case  with  the  Gospels  in  the  ancient 
Oriental  manuscripts.  Among  the  Epistles  the  Catholic  stood 
first  as  the  more  general,  and  the  Pauline  were  arranged  ac- 
cording to  the  assumed  rank  of  the  churches  and  persons  to 
whom  they  were  directed.  But  much  of  this  was  quite  un- 
settled and  changeable  until  late  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity  many  phenomena  may  be  brouglit  together  here 
which  belong  in  part  to  a  much  later  time. 

In  the  Latin  Church  (Codices  and  Versions,  §§  392,  453  ;  of.  also  Tertull., 
Adv.  Marc,  IV.  2),  John  stands  directly  after  Matthew,  Mark  last.  An- 
cient Greek  codices  in  like  manner  place  Luke  at  the  end. 

The  order  in  Marcion's  collection  was  doubtless  based  upon  chronological 
presuppositions,  §  291.  Moderns  conjecture  a  theological  purpose  iu  it,  but 
probably  incorrectly. 

As  to  the  arrangement  according  to  the  dignity  of  the  author,  the  circum- 
stance that  James  stands  before  Peter  is  probably  to  be  explained  rather 
from  a  mistake  respecting  the  person  of  the  author  (§  146),  than  from  Jew- 
ish-Christian prejudice  in  favor  of  the  famous  president  of  the  church  at 
Jerusalem.  Yet  this  order  is  not  constant,  either  in  manuscripts  or  editions. 
In  the  West  Peter  stands  first. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  strays  like  an  interloper  from  one  place  to 
another.  As  a  disputed  addition  it  stands  last  in  most  manuscripts  and  edi- 
tions ;  on  the  principle  of  the  priority  of  churches  over  individuals,  it  is 
found  between  Thessalonians  and  Timothy  in  the  oldest  codices  (e.  g.,  A,  B, 
C,  and  others,  according  to  Athanasius,  Ep.fest.,  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  xlii.),  also 
in  Lachmaun  and  Muralt  ;  also  between  Galatians  and  Ephesians  according 
to  a  numbering  of  chapters  in  Cod.  B  ;  between  Colossians  and  Thessalo- 
nians in  Cassiod.,  Div.  led.,  ch.  xiv.,  etc. 

One  might  be  tempted  to  explain  the  order  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  on  the 
prmciple  that  they  were  arranged  according  to  their  proportionate  length. 
(Laurent,  in  the  Studien,  1864,  III.  492.)  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians vary  their  position  most.  —  The  Catholic  Epistles  in  the  older  oriental 
manuscripts  are  placed  next  the  Acts.  In  the  second  century  they  did  not 
yet  form  a  closed  collection  at  all. 

The  order  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  (§  310)  appears  to  be  wholly  arbitrary  : 
Corinthians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  Galatians,  Thessalonians, 
Romans,  Philemon,  Titus,  Timothy.  —  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  stands 
before  that  to  the  Philippians  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus  ;  after  the  Thes- 
salonians in  the  Lyons  Codex  of  the  Catharic  Version,  etc. 

How  unsettled  the  order  was  in  ancient  times  appears  from  the  catalogues 
to  be  given  below  (§  320  ff.)  ;  mostly,  doubtless,  for  the  reason  that  com- 
plete copies  were  rarities  and  a  whole  Bible  consisted  of  many  volumes,  not 
numbered.  It  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  mention  all  that  might  be  sjjoken 
of  here.  For  interesting  comparative  tables  see  Volkmar,  in  the  Appendix 
to  Credner,  Geschichte  des  Kanons,  p.  390  ff .  ;  cf.  also  Tischendorf 's  Prole- 


308  HISTOEY  OF  THE  CANON. 

gomena  to  the  seventh  edition  of  his  New  Testament,  p.  71  &.  [Prolegg.  to 
8th  ed.  by  Gregory  and  Abbot,  1883.] 

Tlie  order  in  our  modern  versions  is  connected  with  the  criticism  of  the 
Canon  practiced  by  tlie  Reformers  (§  334).  The  pre-Lutlieran  versions  nat- 
ui'ally  retained  tlie  order  of  the  Vulgate,  the  manuscripts  of  which,  however, 
vary,  placing  the  Pauline  Epistles  sometimes  immediately  after  the  Gos- 
pels and  sometimes  not  until  after  the  Catholic. 

Modern  editions  of  the  Greek  N.  T.  have  in  part  held  more  strictly  to  the 
manuscripts  and  dejiarted  from  the  customary  order.  For  details  see  the 
history  of  the  jjrinted  text. 

The  order  in  the  O.  T.  must  likewise  have  been  very  indefinite  in  an- 
cient times,  since  even  later  different  catalogues  vary  from  one  another,  and 
at  the  same  time  from  our  present  edition  of  the  original  text  and  the  LXX. 
(Mt.  xxiii.  35  =^  Lk.  xxiv.  44  appears  to  agree  with  the  first.)  So  also  He- 
brew and  Greek  codices. 

303.  The  coordimition  of  the  apostolic  writings  witli  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  led  to  the  necessity  of  distin- 
guishing the  two  by  suitable  names.  The  choice  of  these  could 
not  be  difficult,  for  the  writings  themselves  furnished  them. 
They  were  forthwith  distinguished  as  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Covenants,  and  were  thereby  at  the  same  time  brought 
into  closer  mutual  relations.  Soon,  this  name  of  covenant,  or 
that  of  testament,  which  in  reality  arose  from  a  false  transla- 
tion, became  familiar  through  the  ecclesiastical  Latin,  and  from 
it  was  handed  down  to  us,  was  transferred  to  the  books  them- 
selves, by  an  easily  intelligible  abbreviation  of  the  phrase. 
At  the  same  time  the  applicability  of  the  distinctive,  sacred 
name  of  the  Scriptures  to  both  parts  of  the  collection  was  prac- 
tically declared. 

At  first  people  were  satisfied  with  the  natural  distinctions  of  Law  and 
Gospel,  Prophets  and  Apostles  (TertulL,  Adv.  Marc,  III.  14  ;  Adv.  Hermog., 
45).  The  expressions  thus  often  become  so  mixed  that  there  arises  appar- 
ently a  threefold  division  ;  see  the  passages  in  Clement,  §  297. 

The  idea  of  the  covenant  is  expressed  and  carried  out  in  many  ways  in  the 
O.  T.,  in  the  Law  as  well  as  in  the  Prophets,  also  with  prophetic  hints  of  a 
new  covenant,  Jer.  xxxi.  32.  Expressly  taken  up  again  by  Christ  (Mt.  xxvi. 
28,  where  the  Vulgate  translates  Siad-fiKri  by  testamentmn'),  and  frequently- 
used  by  the  Apostles  for  illustration  :  2  Cor.  iii.  6  ff . ;  Gal.  iv.  24  ;  Hebr.  viii. 
8 ;  ix.  15,  etc.  Hence  to.  ^i^Xia  ttjs  TraAaiSs,  ttjs  nawris  SiaflT^KTjs,  libri  veteris,  novi 
testamenti  (foederis) ;  the  first  to  a  certain  degree  even  in  2  Cor.  iii.  14. 

The  abbreviated  name  (novum  testamentum)  first  in  Tertullian,  Adv.  Prax., 
ch.  XV. ;  in  full,  totum  instrumentum  utriusque  testamenti,  ch.  xx.  ;  instrumentum, 
vel  quod  magis  usui  est  dicere,  testamentum,  idem.  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  1  ;  cf.  De 
pudic,  ch.  i.  It  is  evident  that  no  fixed  usage  had  yet  been  formed.  The  ex- 
pression instrumentum,  as  a  juridical  term,  includes  the  idea  of  legal  valid- 
ity. 'H  Kaiv)],  T)  iraKaia  hiaQ-i)K7)  simply,  in  Origen,  Ilepi  apx'"",  IV.  1  (I.  156), 
which  words,  however,  are  wanting  in  Rufinus'  translation. 

Lactant.,  Instit.,  IV.  20  ;  Scriptura  omnis  in  duo  testamenta  divisa  est  .... 
Sed  tamen  diversa  non  sunt  quia  novum  veteris  adimpletio  est  et  in  utroque  idem 
testator  est  Christus. 

Vpaiiii,  ypa<f>al,  scriptura,  scripturce,  applied  to  the  New  Testament,  do  not 
occur  before  TheophHus  (§  297).     Cf.  %  285. 


AUTHORITY  OF  EARLY  COLLECTIONS.  309 

304.  The  more  tlie  authority  of  the  apostolic  writings  grew 
within  the  Catholic  Church  and  became  at  the  same  time  a 
means  of  establishing  it  more  firmly,  the  less  could  dissenting 
parties  escape  the  necessity  of  declaring  themselves  in  some 
way  respecting  their  relation  to  these  writings  and  their  col- 
lection. It  is  self-evident  that  the  farther  they  departed  from 
the  centre  of  the  general  church  faith  the  more  divergent  must 
also  have  become  their  judgment  respecting  the  whole  or 
particular  portions  of  the  sacred  literature.  While  one  party 
might  be  satisfied  with  gaining  over  to  their  side  the  text 
accepted  by  others  by  means  of  special  interpretation,  without 
altering  its  substance  in  any  way,  others  were  obliged  to  deny 
the  genuineness  or  validity  of  the  books  which  stood  in  their 
way.  But  many,  recognizing  in  the  appeal  to  apostolic  wit- 
nesses only  a  theological  method,  and  not  the  true  and  proper 
basis  of  Christian  faith,  cari-ied  on  with  increasing  arbitrariness 
the  business  of  fabricating  spurious  apostolic  books.  Neverthe- 
less, inasmuch  as  at  no  time  during  the  third  century  did  the 
Catholic  Church  possess  a  fixed,  definitely  limited,  and  publicly 
and  generally  recognized  catalogue  of  its  collection  of  sacred 
writings,  it  is  not  probable  that  any  heretical  church  had  such 
a  thing.  The  idea  of  the  later  so-called  Canon  was  not  yet 
clearly  recognized,  and  in  one  party  as  well  as  another  the 
opinions  of  the  leaders  might  be  derived  partly  from  custom, 
and  partly  be  still  free. 

For  proofs,  see  §§  244  &.,  291  f.,  327,  508. 

305.  Both  the  above-mentioned  facts  are  of  great  importance 
for  our  history,  and  explain  many  phenomena  in  the  history  of 
the  Church.  On  the  one  hand  the  ever-increasing  use  of  these 
designations  of  the  apostolic  books,  unknown  to  the  earlier 
writers,  serves  to  show  that  a  change  in  the  customs  and  views 
of  the  Church  respecting  them  had  pi-eceded,  which  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  could  not  stop  half-way,  and  could  only  find 
its  conclusion  in  a  full  and  dogmatically  complete  definition 
and  selection.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  just  as  certain  that  up 
to  this  time  there  must  have  been  a  continual  hesitation  of 
judgment  in  details,  which  arose  from  the  disagreements  of 
tradition  with  the  theory,  and  which,  by  its  very  inconven- 
ience, must  have  at  the  same  time  rendered  the  more  settled 
state  desirable  and  finally  brought  it  about.  Now  this  hesi- 
tation, for  obvious  reasons,  could  result  only  in  a  gradual 
enrichment  of  the  collection.  In  particular,  the  fact  must  be 
taken  into  account  that  the  practical  needs  of  the  churches 
began  to  exert  their  influence  upon  the  collection  before  dog- 
matic ideas,  and  that  consequently  the  school  was  no  longer 
able  to  be  absolute  master  of  this  field. 


310  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

Not  only  the  names  Scripture,  Covenant,  and  Testament  (§  303),  but  even 
the  designation  of  the  books  by  the  titles,  Gospel,  Apostle  (§  300),  uimiistak- 
ably  presuppose  dogmatic  theories  and  views  whose  non-existence  before 
follows  from  the  non-occurrence  of  those  terms. 

306.  For  if  we  look  about  for  the  causes  which  chiefly  and 
directly  determined  public  judgment  in  this  matter,  we  no- 
where find,  so  far  as  historical  evidence  goes,  any  scholarly 
investigation,  any  sifting  of  the  extant  mass  of  writings,  under- 
taken under  ecclesiastical  authority,  or  making  any  claim 
thereto.  On  the  other  hand,  the  greatest  and  most  lasting 
influence  upon  the  final  formation  of  the  Canon  was  exerted  by 
custom,  in  the  form  in  which  it  happened  to  have  been  devel- 
oped by  circumstances  in  the  more  important  churches.  The 
example  of  metropolitan  churches,  from  which  the  copies  must 
have  been  obtained  in  any  case,  was  decisive  within  the  whole 
range  of  its  influence,  and  it  was  natural  that  between  several 
central  points  of  this  kind  there  should  be  a  mutual  inter- 
change for  the  supplementing  of  what  was  locally  current,  in 
so  far,  at  least,  as  they  were  in  friendly  relations  with  one 
another,  or  were  bound  together  by  external  bonds,  as  even 
by  that  of  language.  We  ascribe  much  less  importance  to  the 
influence  of  the  private  opinions  of  distinguished  teachers, 
although  our  sources  of  knowledge  of  the  latter  are  much 
richer  than  of  the  former. 

The  latter  circumstance  has  usually  not  only  and  necessarily  caused  a 
greater  space  to  be  given  to  the  enumeration  of  such  private  opinions,  but 
also,  involuntarily,  a  practical  importance  to  be  assigned  to  them  which  they 
never  had.  They  are  only  evidences  of  the  state  of  opinion  in  a  limited 
sphere. 

The  circumstance  may  also  be  noted  that  in  non-Greek  countries,  where  the 
apostolic  writings  coidd  only  be  known  in  translations,  the  idea  of  a  closed 
collection  found  easier  entrance,  developed  at  once  more  firmly,  and  became 
in  a  certain  measure  official,  because  these  writings  came  there  already  in 
this  form  and  not  singly.  Hence  the  oldest  catalogue  of  the  canonical  col- 
lection which  we  possess  is  a  Latin  one  (§310).     So  also  with  Syria,  §  308. 

307.  We  collect  in  the  following  the  knowledge  which  may 
be  derived  from  the  testimony  of  antiquity  respecting  the 
gradual  fixing  of  the  Christian  Canon  of  Scripture,  after  a  first 
move  toward  it  had  been  made  in  the  principal  churches.  It 
will  appear  that  no  history  can  be  made  out,  but  only  a  frag- 
ment of  one.  But  the  very  fragmentariness  of  tlie  information 
at  our  command  will  help  to  confirm  the  conviction  that  the 
final  result  was  neither  consciously  aimed  at  from  the  begin- 
ning nor  guided  in  its  development  by  principles  ;  that,  on  the 
contrary,  circumstances,  accidents,  even  taste,  and  above  all 
custom,  little  concealed  in  its  origin,  brought  about  the  choice. 
All  the  more  is  the  fact  to  be  recognized  witli  thankfulness 
and  wonder  that  the  result  as  a  whole  holds  its  ground  iigainst 


EAELY  COLLECTIONS  — SYKIA  — ROME.  311 

a  sti'icter  criticism,  and  there  is  nothing  to  be  said  against  it  if 
this  feeling  regards  the  result  as  another  proof  of  a  higher 
leading  of  the  Church.  Only  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
antiquity  itself  never  made  the  formation  of  the  Canon,  in  any 
conception  of  it  at  variance  with  history,  the  subject  of  a 
dogma. 

There  is  even  yet  great  confusion  in  the  collections  of  such  testimonies, 
partly  from  giving  attention  only  to  what  is  positively  named,  and  not  to 
traces  of  ignorance,  partly  from  making  no  distinction  between  homiletic 
and  dogmatic  use. 

Gerhard  v.  Maestricht  (§  407),  Canon  S.  S.  secundum  seriem  sceculorum,  in 
the  Bihlioth.  Brem.,  VII.  1-56,  very  superficial.  Quellensammlung  zur  Geschichte 
des  neutest.  Kanons  bis  auf  Hieronymus,  ed.  J.  Kirchhofer,  Ziir.  1842,  uncrit- 
ical in  plan,  and  in  apologetic  interest.  Cf.  also  Lardner,  Credibility  of  the 
Gospel  History,  I.-IV.;  Corrodi,  Beitrdge,  XVII.,  13  if.;  J.  C.  Oi"elli,  Selecta 
PP.  capita  ad  eWriynTiK^tv  pertin.,  Tur.  1820  ff .,  Pts.  I.-IV.,  uncompleted. 

308.  The  earliest  extension  of  that  which  we  believe  may 
be  called,  however  improperly,  the  original  collection,  appears 
to  have  been  made  in  Syria.  At  least  the  ancient  translation 
which  was  probably  prepared  in  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century  for  the  national  church  of  that  country  already  con- 
tained the  two  Epistles  of  James  and  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
acceptance  of  these  is  based  expressly  upon  a  favorable  judg- 
ment respecting  the  apostolic  dignity  of  their  authors.  The 
authority  which  this  translation  soon  obtained  gives  to  the 
collection  contained  in  it  a  semi-official  character.  Besides, 
we  may  without  hesitation  assume  that  the  Greek  Christians 
of  that  region  had  preceded  their  Syrian  brethren  in  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  writings  mentioned. 

On  the  Syriae  version,  the  Peshito,  see  §§  326,  426  f.  Its  canon  is  made 
known  both  by  the  manuscripts  and  by  patristic  evidence  (Cosmas,  De  mundo, 
Bk.  VI.,  in  Galland.,  XI.  535),  and  the  knowledge  of  its  extent  was  retained 
among  Syrian  scholars  into  the  Middle  Ages. 

The  conjecture  of  Hug  (^Einl.,  I.  356),  that  the  Epistles  still  wanting  (2 
Peter,  2  and  3  John,  Jude)  and  the  Apocalypse  were  originally  present  and 
were  omitted  after  the  fourth  century,  is  a  rash  venture  of  mistaken  apolo- 
getics, and  stands  all  history  on  its  head,  since  at  that  time  these  books  had 
come  to  canonical  authority  in  all  Christendom,  and  the  Church  never  re- 
jected again  what  she  had  once  sanctified  in  this  way.  Cf.  also  Giiricke's 
Beitrdge,  p.  1. 

The  acceptance  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  here  and  wherever  it  oc- 
curs in  the  following,  presupposes  its  composition  by  Paul. 

The  acceptance  of  the  Epistle  of  James  appears,  according  to  a  title-page 
note  exhibited  by  the  manuscripts  and  printed  in  the  earlier  editions,  to  de- 
pend upon  a  misunderstandmg,  inasmuch  as  the  three  Catholic  Epistles  are 
ascribed  to  the  three  witnesses  of  Christ's  transfiguration. 

In  the  O.  T.  the  Apocrypha  do  not  belong  to  the  original  canon  of  the 
Peshito,  but  came  into  it  later. 

309.  Unfortunately  we  possess  no  knowledge,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  an  authentic  record,  of  the  collection  which  may  have 


312  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

been  accepted  at  the  same  time  in  the  Roman  Church,  which 
just  then  was  beginning  to  attain  predominant  influence  and 
authority  in  the  West.  The  history  of  the  circulation  of  the 
sacred  writings  will  teach  us,  it  is  true,  that  there  was  already 
in  existence  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  a  Latin  version 
of  them,  perhaps  even  several,  but  since  not  a  single  complete 
copy  of  it  has  been  preserved  and  no  information  as  to  its  ex- 
tent is  to  be  discovered,  nothing  remains  for  us  but  to  collect, 
from  the  scanty  quotations  of  some  few  Latin  writers  of  the 
third  century,  proofs  for  the  apostolic  authority  of  particular 
books,  without  being  justified  by  their  silence  as  to  others  in 
forming  an  opposite  opinion  respecting  them. 

Cf.  §§  313,  448  e. 

310.  This  unfortunate  lack  may  be  partly  supplied,  with 
reference  to  the  history  of  the  Roman  Canon,  although  it  be- 
longs perhaps  rather  to  Africa  than  to  Rome,  by  the  famous 
fragment  discovered  and  published  by  Muratori,  and  much 
discussed  in  modern  times.  This  fragment  of  a  list  of  sacred 
books  certainly  reaches  back  into  the  second  century,  since  it 
betrays  by  many  striking  peculiarities  in  its  opinions  a  time 
of  greater  independence  ;  but  the  text  of  the  copy  which  has 
come  down  to  us  is  much  corrupted  and  very  defective,  so  that 
even  to  understand  it  at  all  many  critical  conjectures  have  ap- 
peared necessary.  Moreover  the  attempts  at  restoration  have 
sufficiently  shown  that  in  the  interest  of  preconceived  opinions 
it  is  easy,  by  the  help  of  correction,  to  find  in  it  what  one  de- 
sires. But  with  a  more  correct  estimation  of  the  language, 
and  a  more  careful  consideration  of  otherwise  known  facts  of 
this  history,  the  difficulties  of  the  text  ai'e  not  insuperable, 
and  the  result  rewards  investigation  by  its  peculiarity. 

Muratori,  Antiqq.  Italice  medii  (evi,  III.  854  ;  reprinted  in  Stoscli,  De 
canone  N.  T.,  p.  181;  Eichhoi-n,  EinL,  IV.  35;  Guericke,  EhiL,  p.  4G;  Kirch- 
hofer,  Quellensamml.,  p.  1,  and  others  ;  but  especially  in  Credner,  Zur  Gesch. 
des  Kanons,  1847,  p.  71  ft".;  J.  v.  Gilse,  De  antiq.  II.  ss.  catalogo,  etc.,  Amst. 
1852  ;  and  Hilgenfeld,  Gesch.  d.  Kanons,  p.  40  ;  the  latter  according  to  new 
collations.  Cf.  in  general  C.  Wieseler,  in  the  Studien,  1847,  IV.  ;  1856,  I.  ; 
F.  T.  Zimmermann  (resp.  C.  L.  G.  Grossmann),  De  canone  II.  ss.  a  Mura- 
torio  rep.,  Jena,  1805;  Olshausen,  Echtheit  der  Evang.,  p.  281  ff.;  P.  Bot- 
ticher,  Versuch  e.  Wiederherstellung  des  Can.  Mur.,  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  luth. 
TheoL,  1854,  I.  ;  S.  P.  Tregelles,  The  earliest  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the 
N.  T.,  1857  (with  facsimile) ;  Nolte,  Ueber  das  Mur.  Fragment,  in  the  Quar- 
talschr.,  1860,  II.;  J.  C.  M.  Laurent,  in  his  Neatest.  Studien,  p.  197  ff.  ;  C.  E. 
Scharling,  Muraiori's  Kanon,  Copenh.  1865  (Danish);  A.  D.  Loman,  in  the 
Theol.  Tijdschrift,  Leyd.  1868,  p.  471  (Dutch). 

In  the  portion  preserved  are  enumerated  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  John, 
the  Acts,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  an  Epistle  of  Jude  and  two  of  John,  the 
Apocalypses  of  John  and  Peter,  the  latter,  however,  with  mention  of  a  dis- 
pute.    There  is  wanting  at  the  beginning  at  least  Matthew  and  Mark,  since 


MURATORIAN  CANON.  313 

Luke  is  introduced  as  the  third  evangelist.  The  Epistles  of  James  and 
Peter,  as  well  as  that  to  the  Hebrews,  are  omitted.  From  the  fact  that  the 
fragment,  referring  to  Mark,  begins  with  the  words  .  .  .  quibus  inLerfuit,  the 
idea  of  a  participation  of  Peter  in  the  second  Gospel  has  been  conjectured 
here  ;  but  it  is  certainly  hasty  to  infer  further  that  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter 
may  also  have  preceded.  The  Shepherd  of  Hernias  is  said  to  be  read  for 
private  edification  only,  not  publicly.  The  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Laodi- 
ceans  and  Alexandrians  are  exj^ressly  rejected  as  heretical. 

As  a  specimen  we  select  only  some  lines  which  have  a  special  interest  for 
our  history.     On  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  see  §§  301,  302. 

.  .  .  Acta  autem  omnium  apostolorum  sub  uno  libra  scribta  sunt  lucas  obtime 
theojile  conprindit  quia  sub  prcesentia  ejus  singula  gerebantur  sicut  et  semote 
passionem  petri  evidenter  declarat  sed  profeclionem  pauli  ab  urbe  ad  spaniam 
prqficescentis  .  .  .  fertur  etiam  ad  laudecenses  alia  ad  alexandrinos  pauli  nom- 
ine Jincte  ad  heresem  marcionis  et  alia  plura  quce  in  catholicam  edesiam  recepi 
non  potest  fel  enim  cum  melle  misceri  non  concruit  epistola  sane  iude  et  super- 
scrictio  ioannis  duas  in  catholica  habentur  et  sapientia  ab  aniicis  salomonis  in 
honorem  ipsius  scripta  apocalypse  etiam  iohanis  et  petri  tantum  recipimus  quam 
quidam  ex  nostris  legi  in  eclesia  nolunt.  ,  .  . 

In  what  is  here  said  of  the  Acts,  therefore,  the  meaning  is  that  the  death 
of  Peter  is  related  elsewhere  (by  Luke  ?),  but  (Credner  reads  et  and  refers 
to  Rom.  XV.  24)  the  journey  of  Paul  to  Spain  is  either  omitted  or  something 
else.  The  former  (by  the  conjecture  :  semota  declarant,  i.  e.,  other  passages 
declare  ?  ?)  would  then  refer  to  Jn.  xxi.  18.  Cf.  E.  Reuss,  in  the  Revue  de 
TheoL,  11.  165.  Von  Gilse  proposes  sicut  semotam  passionem  .  .  .  et  pro- 
feclionem •  which  is  said  to  signify  :  Luke  declares  that  he  has  omitted  both 
because  he  was  not  present.  Bdtticher  :  the  omission  (semovere)  of  the  two 
events  proves  that  Luke  only  narrated  what  he  himself  saw.  Hilgenfeld 
reads  sed  et  profectionem  and  finds  the  death  of  Peter  and  the  journey  of 
Paul  semote  {TT6ppoiQiv')  hinted  at  in  the  abrupt  close  of  the  Acts. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  some  scholars  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  to  be 
looked  for  in  one  of  the  two  rejected  ones.  (On  the  Laodiceans  see  above, 
§  152  ;  on  the  Alexandrians,  Hug,  I.  123;  Miinter,  Dogmengesch.,  I.  255; 
Wieseler,  Kostlin,  in  the  Tiib.  Jahrb.,  1854,  p.  416;  Guericke,  p.  50,  and 
many  others.)  But  the  latter  supplies,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  text, 
after  ad  heresem  .  .  .  refutandam.  Others  have  thought  of  the  extant  apoc- 
ryphal Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  which,  however,  is  hardly  so  old,  or  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  by  a  misunderstanding  (Anger,  Laod.,  p.  26). 
Upon  any  of  these  suppositions  the  author  woidd  betray  an  indescribable 
superficiality  or  ignorance.  More  simply,  V.  Gilse  reads  :  Ad,  as  the  begin- 
ning of  a  new  sentence  :  the  Marcionites  have  still  other  Apocrypha  (?). 
See  in  general  Bleek,  Hebr.,  I.  43  ff.,  122.  —  The  fact  is  not  to  be  overlooked 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  also  excluded,  and  that  for  the  first 
time,  by  the  statement  :  Paulus,  sequens  prcedecessoris  sui  lohannis  ordinem 
nonnisi  nominatim  septem  ecclesiis  scribal  (referring  to  the  seven  letters  in  the 
Apocalypse,  in  connection  with  which  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  author  is 
already  far  enough  removed  from  the  apostolic  age  to  represent  John  as 
preceding  Paul  with  his  example  !).  Bunsen  (Hippolyt.,  I.  363)  brings  the 
Epistle,  together  with  James,  1  Peter,  and  1  John,  into  an  assumed  gap  ; 
just  like  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  («.  e.,  our  Proverbs)  it  was  written  in  hono- 
rem Pauli  ab  amicis. 

The  two  Epistles  of  John  are  said  by  Credner  to  be  the  second  and  third, 
and  superscriplce  (sic),  simply  bearing  the  name,  though  incorrectly.  The 
first  was  earlier  mentioned,  in  a  quotation,  in  connection  with  the  Gospel. 
This  explanation  is  insufficient  because  the  latter  is  not  expressly  true  and 
did  not  render  the  special  enumeration  unnecessary,  and  because  super- 
scriplce would  thus  be  in  contradiction  with  the  rest  of  the  text.     Either  the 


314  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

author  actually  knew  ouly  one  of  the  two  minor  Epistles  or  knew  one  of 
them  only  as  an  integral  part  of  the  larger.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  ac- 
cording to  Credner  to  be  connected  with  ut,  is  said  to  be  a  further  example 
of  canonized  Pseudepigrapha  (?).  May  the  author,  perhaps,  have  regarded 
it  as  a  Christian  book  ?  Or  is  he  speaking  of  the  Proverbs  (xxv.  1)  ?  Or 
did  the  text  originally  contain  also  the  Canon  of  the  O.  T.,  since  in  connec- 
tion with  Hernias  the  completus  numerus  prophetarum  is  mentioned  ?  Bdt- 
ticher  assumes  a  large  gap  before  et  Sapientia.  Wieseler  connects  it  with 
the  following  :  Ut  Sapientia,  thus  making  even  the  Apocalypse  not  by  John 
himself,  and  yet  received. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  which  is  also  mentioned  as  an  Antilegomenon, 
Hug,  EinL,  I.,  transforms  by  means  of  ingenious  manipulation  of  the  text 
into  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  finds  added  to  it  anention  of  doubt  of  the 
second.  Guericke  makes  it  apply  to  the  first  and  refers  the  doubt  to  it. 
Both  uimecessary  and  incorrect.  Even  Wieseler  explains  Et  Petri  tantum, 
and  just  as  many  (as  of  John,  that  is  to  say,  two  epistles  and  an  Apocalypse) 
we  accept  of  Peter  ! 

The  expression  is  also  important  :  "  To  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Philemon 
Paul  wrote  pro  affectu  et  dilectione,  in  honore  tamen  eel.  cath.  in  ordinatione 
eclesiastice  descepline  sanctijicate  sunt"  where  the  last  word  must  be  under- 
stood not  so  much  of  a  sort  of  official  canonization  as  of  the  fact  that  these 
Epistles,  though  written  to  private  persons,  had  obtained,  by  the  foundations 
which  they  lay  for  church  government,  an  importance  for  the  whole  church. 
With  respect  to  the  remaining  Pauline  Ejjistles  also  (which  are  enumerated 
in  a  very  peculiar  order,  §  302,  and  with  numbers),  the  author  expressly  re- 
marks that  notwithstanding  their  local  addresses,  they  were  written  for  the 
whole  church.     Cf.  §  301. 

Too  much  stress  is  certainly  laid  by  Credner  {Tiib.  Jahrb.,  1857,  III.  p. 
303)  upon  the  circumstance  that  John  ex  discipulis  is  said  to  have  written  his 
Gospel  according  to  a  revelation  made  to  Andrew  ex  apostolis,  when  he  in- 
fers therefrom  that  John  is  said  not  to  have  been  the  Apostle. 

The  date  of  this  fragment  is  shown  by  what  is  said  of  Hernias  :  Nuperrime 
temporibus  nostris  in  urbe  Roma  herma  conscripsit  sedente  cathetra  urbis  Romce 
ceclesire  Pio  eps.  fratre  ejus,  which  would  be  c.  156  A.  D.  and  nuperrime  would 
lead  us  at  the  latest  to  180.  The  character  of  the  selection  of  books  is  not 
opposed,  and  Muratori  is  certainly  in  error  when  he  conjectures  as  the 
author  the  presbyter  Cains  (§  313),  who  is  said  to  have  been  an  opponent  of 
the  Apocalypse  and  who  probably  had  a  better  style.  The  assumption  of 
moderns  that  it  was  translated  from  the  Greek  (Hug,  EinL,  P.  Botticher, 
Nolte,  Hilgenfeld,  I.  c.)  is  a  make-shift  to  justify  violent  alterations  of  the 
text,  and  little  fits  the  play  upon  words /e/-meZ.  Nor  does  it  at  all  explain 
the  problem  of  the  unexampled  corruption  of  the  Latin  text,  even  if  a  natural 
Greek  original  could  be  restored  from  it,  which  is  not  the  case. 

311.  All  the  facts  hitherto  adduced  for  the  history  of  our 
collection  presuppose  as  yet  no  critical  investigation,  scarcely 
even  a  scientific  view  of  the  relative  value  of  all  the  constit- 
uents. Origen  was  probably  the  first  to  adopt  such  a  point 
of  view,  without  being  able  to  obtain  definite  and  certain 
results.  It  has  been  assumed  from  an  incidental  statement 
that  he  distinguished  three  classes  of  books :  genuine,  whose 
apostolic  origin  appeai-ed  to  him  sufficiently  proved  ;  spurious, 
i.  e.  distinctly  not  apostolic,  not  necessarily,  however,  devoid 
of  all  value  for  the  Church ;  and  finally  a  middle  class  of  such 


ORIGEN.  315 

as  enjoyed  no  general  recognition,  or  respecting  whicli  his  own 
judgment  had  not  yet  been  fully  made  up.  But  the  distinc- 
tion is  more  correctly  referred  to  the  value  and  ecclesiastical 
authority  of  the  contents,  so  that  a  mixture  of  elements,  or 
even  a  less  degree  of  inspiration,  would  be  presupposed  in  the 
third  class.  Yet  in  his  practical  application  of  Scripture  he 
appears  to  have  made  little  of  this  distinction,  and  his  theology 
rose  above  all  scrupulously  accurate  classification.  With  re- 
spect to  the  Old  Testament  he  follows  the  Hebrew  custom. 

Sources  :  partly  liis  own  works,  which  however  have  only  come  clown  to 
us  incomplete,  or  in  untrustworthy  Latin  revision  (ed.  De  la  Rue,  Par. 
1733  &.,  4  vols.  fol.  ;  ed.  Lomniatzsch,  L.  1831  ft'.,  25  vols.  8°  ;  the  Greek  ex- 
egetical  writings  alone,  ed.  Huet,  Par.  1679  ;  Col.  1085,  2  vols,  i'ol.),  and 
partly  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  VI.  25.     For  literature  on  Origen  see  §  511. 

Comm.  in  Joh.,  Vol.  XIV.,  on  iv.  22  :  i^iTa^ovTes  irepi  tov  fii^xlov  (the 
Sermon  of  Peter)  Tr6rep6v  ttotc  yviiaL6v  icrriv  rj  v60ov  rj  iJ.iKr6v. 

As  yvr^a-ia.  he  reckons  also  the  Apocalypse  (pui-ilied  of  its  offensive  ChiU- 
asm  by  his  exegesis,  §  511  S.)  and  the  Ejjistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  so  far  as 
it  contains  Pauline  thought,  since  every  judge  must  admit  that  the  style 
betrays  another  author  than  Paul  ;  rls  Se  6  ypdipa?  tV  fTn(TTo\7]v  6  6ehs  oldev. 
In  the  Ep.  ad  Afric,  eh.  ix.,  he  distinguishes  it  from  the  (pauepa  &i^\ia,  but 
otherwise  holds  it  in  very  liigh  esteem  and  quotes  it  often,  without  the  name 
of  Paul. 

Among  the  v6Qoi  doubtless  belongs,  among  others,  the  Shepherd,  a  Scrip- 
tura  divinitus  inspirata  (In  Ep.  ad  Rom.,  Bk.  X.  31),  (pepofx^yri  fxhv  evrfi  e/cKA^trdy 
ypacpTj  oil  irapa.  iraai  Se  o/xoKoyov/jiepr)  eJvai  6ela  (In  Matth.,  Vol.  XIV.  21  ;  cf.  De 
Princ,  II.  1),  unless  it  should  be  placed  in  the  following  class. 

Among  the  fxiKJol,  according  to  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  VI.  25,  2  Peter  (Uerpos 
fiiav  iTTi<jToK}]U  bpLoKoyovfxivriv  Kara\4\oLTzeV  ecrroi  Se  koX  SevrepaV  aix<pi^dWeTai  yap) , 
2  and  3  John  {iaroo  Se  koI  Sevrepav  koI  rpirrjf  eirel  ov  iravres  (pcurl  yvricriovs  eivai 
ravras) ;  these  epistles  are  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Greek  text  of  Origen  ; 
James  {v  ^epoixevt),  In  Johan.,  Vol.  XIX.  6),  Jude  (el  irpocToirS rts,  In  Matth., 
Vol.  XVII.  30,  and  einaToAi]  oAiyScrrixos  /leu  ireiT\r)p<uixevr)  Se  oiipaviov  x'^P'-'^^s, 
ibid.,  X.  17).  The  authors  are  brothers  of  Jesus,  and  are  called  Apostles 
only  in  the  Latin  texts. 

The  separation  of  such  a  third,  middle  class  was  the  first  step  toward  its 
advance  into  the  first. 

He  professes  everywhere  to  follow  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  (in  his  omni- 
bus fiihil  aliud probamus  nisi  quod  ecclesia,  Horn.  I.  in  Luc).  In  view  of  this 
declaration  it  may  surprise  us  that  in  Horn.  VII.  in  Jos.,  in  his  explanation 
of  the  trumpets  of  Jericho,  the  Apostles,  together  with  all  twenty-seven  later 
canonized  writings  are  represented  as  the  stormers  of  the  world  and  its 
philosophy.  The  passage  is  no  longer  extant  in  the  original,  it  is  true,  but 
may  properly  be  regarded  as  genuine,  showing  that  then  as  well  as  now  the 
pulpit  and  the  teacher's  chair  might  have  different  standards  of  canonicity. 
Cf .  also  Horn.  XIII.  in  Genes. 

In  the  O.  T.  he  recognizes  but  twenty-two  evSiaOriKovs  filfSAovt  (Eusebius, 
VI.  25,  and  Selecta  in  Psalmos,  0pp.,  XI.  378,  Lomniatzsch)  ;  in  order  to 
make  out  the  number  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  while  several  are  put  together 
under  one  number,  of  the  Apocrypha  only  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah  is  ex- 
pressly introduced  ;  Esther  is  placed  at  the  end  ;  Maccabees  reckoned  as  an 
appendix,  but  the  order  in  general  is  obviously  of  Greek  origin.  On  the 
Apocrypha  in  general  see  his  Ep.  ad  Africanum  (0pp.,  Vol.  XVII.) ,  from 
which  it  is  clear  that  he  also  regards  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Esther  in  their 


316  HISTOKY  OF  THE  CANON. 

enlarged  Greek  recension  as  inspired  ;  nay  here,  as  often  elsewhere,  he  also 
quotes  Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Sh-ach,  and  Maccabees  as  Oelos  K6yos,  Scriptura 
(e.  g.,  De  princip.,  II.  1,  5  ;  Cont.  Celsum,  III.  72  ;  VIII.  50  ;  Vol.  VI.  In 
Joh.,  ch.  xix.  ;  In  Matth.  tract., 'SI  ;  Homil.  in  Lev.  1;  In  Num.  18 ;  Philocal, 
ch.  xxii.,  etc.).  Hebrew  tradition  is  not  authoritative  with  him,  but  rather 
the  usage  of  the  Christian  Church  {Ad  Afric,  ch.  xiii.  ;  I.  c,  p.  42). 

How  unsettled  even  yet  is  the  idea  of  canouicity  is  shown  by  the  use 
which  Origen  makes  of  Clement  (Vol.  VI.,  In  Joh.,  ch.  xxxvi.),  Barnabas 
{Cont.  Cels.,  I.  63),  and  especially  Hernias  (§  275).  Even  the  Gospel  of  Peter 
and  the  Acts  of  Paul  he  does  not  reject  imconditionally  [u  tis  irapabix^Tai, 
Horn,  in  Jer.  XV.,    4  ;  Vol.  XX.  In  Joh.,  ch.  xii.,  etc.). 

312.  In  general  no  important  change  took  place  in  the  es- 
tablished collection  even  in  the  course  of  the  thh^d  century. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  however,  gradually  overcame  the 
obstacles  which  had  hitherto  prevented  its  acceptance  in  the 
Oriental  Church.  The  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  Jude,  and 
John,  also,  which  thus  far  had  been  partially  unknown  or 
doubted,  appear  to  have  been  circulated  more  and  more  widely, 
although  the  most  distinguished  church  teachers  make  but 
little  use  of  them.  With  respect  to  the  Apocalypse  alone  was 
there  developed  a  positively  unfavorable  sentiment,  which  is 
the  more  surprising  since  this  book  had  formerly  been  accepted 
with  so  great  approval. 

In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  the  following  are  adduced  as  authorities 
for  the  period  after  Jesus'  death  (II.  55)  :  r]fj.us  ol  ScvBeKa  Kal  rh  rrjs  e/cAoyrjj 
(TKevos  IlaCXos  .  .  .  (rvv  'laKw^cf  tc^  rod  Kupiou  a5eK(pw  Kal  erepots  o^'  /xaOriTois  Kal 
rois  k-KTo.  SiaKovots.  Regular  jjublic  readings  are  appointed,  V.  19  ;  VIII.  5, 
etc.,  especially  II.  67,  from  all  the  (canonical)  books  of  the  O.  T.,  after 
which  are  to  follow  al  -rrpd^eis  al  rifxerepat  .  .  .  Kal  iirL(jTo\a\  TlavKov  rod  crvyepyov 
7)nwv,  afterward  tlie  Gospels  a  eyii  MaTdatos  Kal  'la!dvyr]s  irapeSwKaney  vfj.1v  Kal  & 
ol  crvvepyol  TlaiXou  Trapei\7]<p6rfS  Kar^Xeiipav  vfj.7v  AouKcls  Kal  MapKos.  Of  the  other 
books  nothing  is  said.  In  VI.  16  is  a  warning  against  forged,  godless  writ- 
ings :  oil  yap  to7s  6v6p.a<ri  xph  vf^as  irpoaex^''^  '''^''  aizoaT6\(t>v  aWa  tt)  (pvcrei  toSv 
■Kpay/xaroov  Kal  rrj  yvdfxri. 

Nepos,  Bishop  of  Arsinoe  in  Egypt  (e.  240),  wrote  an  ^Myxos  aWriyopiffroSv 
to  establish  the  literal  chiliastic  mterpretation  of  the  Apocalypse  (Euseb., 
VII.  24).     Against  him:  — 

Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  a  pupil  of  Origen,  is  the  author  of  a 
work  Uepl  iirayyi\iwv,  of  which  a  highly  interesting  portion  is  completely  pre- 
served (Euseb.,  VII.  25),  and  is  noteworthy  as  the  oldest  extended  atteinpt 
to  form  a  judgment  of  an  apostolic  book  upon  intei'nal  evidence,  part  of 
which  is  valid.  He  conjectures  another  John  than  the  evangelist  as  the 
author,  namely,  the  Ephesian  presbyter.  A  single  epistle  only  (t)  ivio-ToXr}) 
is  everywhere  spoken  of  in  the  reasoning  ;  the  second  and  third  {<pep6fx.ei'at) 
are  not  considered  at  all.  He  quotes  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  Pauline 
(Euseb.,  VI.  41)  ;  cf.  P.  J.  Monster,  De  Dion.  Alex,  circa  apoc.  sententia, 
Hafn.  1826. 

Other  testimonies  of  this  period  for  the  same  Epistle,  especially  from 
Egypt,  are  collected  by  Bleek,  Hehr.,  I.  132  ff.  A  synodal  letter  from  An- 
tioch  (c.  264)  quotes  it  as  Pauline  without  comment  (Mansi,  I.  1038). 

Methodius,  Bishop  in  Lycia  (c.  300  ?),  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Apoc- 
alypse, fragments  of  which  are  found  in  Andreas  Cappad.  (§  527). 


THE   WEST.  317 

313.  In  the  West  similar  plienomena  present  themselves, 
with  an  even  smaller  number  of  witnesses.  The  Apocalypse 
enjoyed  the  respect  of  the  majority,  so  far,  that  is,  as  they  held 
chiliastic  views.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on  the  other  hand, 
Avas  much  more  generally  excluded  or  doubted.  In  general,  there 
is  no  lack  of  proof  that  here  also  the  formation  of  the  collec- 
tion of  sacred  books  was  constantly  dependent  upon  prevailing 
dogmatic  conceptions.  This  was  all  the  more  true  in  the  Latin 
Church,  since  the  authority  of  tradition,  in  all  things  relating 
to  doctrine  much  more  oppressive  and  rigorous  than  in  the 
Greek  Church,  had  its  effect  upon  the  theology,  and  historical 
investigation  was  not  only  more  difficult  but  also  more  danger- 
ous. 

Caius,  presbyter  at  Rome  about  220,  did  not  recognize  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  as  Pauline  (Euseb.,  VI.  20)  ;  Decimam  quartam  quce  fertur  ad  He~ 
brceos  (licit  ejus  non  esse ;  sed  et  apud  Romanos  usque  hodie  quasi  Pauli  ap. 
non  habetur  (Jerome,  De  viris  illustr.,  59).  Eusebius  says,  however,  only 
Trapa  "Paifiai&v  riai.  He  also  asserts  (III.  28)  that  Caius  accused  the  heretic 
Cerinthus  (§  245)  of  having  deceived  the  world  Si'  arroKahv\l/ewv  us  virb  b.-KoaT6- 
\ov  fieydxov  yeypa/xf^evaiv.  The  description  of  the  work  agrees  with  the  Apoc- 
alypse of  John.  Eusebius,  however,  does  not  appear  so  to  have  understood 
it  ;  still  less  Theodoret,  Hcer.  fab.,  II.  3.  A  smiilar  assertion  is  made  of 
unknown  opponents  of  the  Apocalypse  by  Dionys.  Alex.  (Euseb.,  VII.  25) 
Cf.  Liicke,  Offenb.  Joli.,  p.  307. 

Hippolytus  (probably  Novatian  bishop  of  Portus  Romanus,  or  some  other 
place  in  the  vicinity  of  Rome  ;  see  Gieseler,  in  the  Studien,  1853,  IV.  ; 
[Neander,  Ck.  Hist.,  I.  681];  died  e.  258  as  a  Catholic  martyr)  rejected  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Stephanus  Gobarus,  in  Photius,  Cod.,  232)  and 
wrote  a  (lost)  apology  :  'tirhp  tov  Kara  'Iwavvriv  eiiayy.  Kal  airoKaA'Li^ecos  ;  see 
0pp.,  ed.  Fabricius,  1716,  fol.  p.  38  ;  Jerome,  De  viris  illust.,  61.  He  was  a 
Chiliast,  but  was  made  use  of  also  l>y  later  Origenists  (Andreas,  Proleg.  in 
Apoc).  Cf.  C.  W.  Haenell,  De  Hippolyto  ep.,  Gott.  1838  ;  Seineke,  in  Ill- 
gen's  Zeitschr.,  1842,  III.  —  Modern  criticism  ascribes  to  him  tlie  lately  dis- 
covered polemic  work,  on  which  see  §  292.  Bunseu  (Hippolytus,  I.  364  f.) 
thinks  he  has  discovered  m  it  a  complete  canon  with  the  exception  of  2  Pe- 
ter. It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  not  a  smgle  Antilegomenon  is 
quoted  and  by  no  means  all  the  Homologoumena. 

The  Novatian  party  in  Italy  and  Africa  (c.  250)  refused  readmission  to 
lapsed  members,  and  were  able  to  support  themselves  in  the  practice  by 
Heb.  vi.  4,  x.  26;  cf.  Ambrose,  De  pcenit.,  II.  3  ;  those  of  Arian  views  by  Heb. 
iii.  2.  Hence  in  these  regions  there  was  aversion  to  the  Epistle  (Quia  fac- 
tum ChriMum  dicit,  non  legitur.  De  poenitentia  propter  Novatianos  ceque :  Phil- 
astr.,  Hceres.,  89),  which,  however,  cannot  have  been  previously  attested  there 
as  Pauline.  This  the  less  since  Novatian  himself,  in  his  extant  writings  (in 
Gallandi,  B.  PP.,  III.),  makes  no  use  whatever  of  it. 

Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage  (f  258),  nowhere  quotes  any  of  the  disputed 
epistles.  On  the  chief  constituents  of  the  Canon  he  indulges  in  numeral 
mysticism  :  the  four  Gospels  ^the  four  rivers  of  Paradise  (Ep.  73)  ;  Paul 
and  John  (Apocalypse  called  Scriptura  sacra,  Ep.  63)  write  to  seven 
churches  ;  Sterilis  septem  peperit  (1  Sam.  ii.  5)  ;  septem  filii,  ecclesice  sunt  sep- 
tem.  Unde  P.  septem  dona  spiritus  scripsit  (ad  septem  ecclesias :  De  exhort, 
mart.,  ch.  ii.)  et  Apoc.  ecclesias  septem  ponit  ut  servetur  septenarius  nmnerus. 
(Adv.  Jud.,  1.  20).     Beside  these  only  1  Peter  and  1  John  are  quoted  (Ep. 


818  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

28  anrl  frequently  ;  Joannes  in  Epistola  sua).  Tobit,  Baruch,  Maccabees, 
and  Wisdom  he  also  regards  as  inspired  or  at  least  quotes. 

Vietorinus,  Bishop  at  Petavium  in  Pannonia  (c.  300),  enumerates  over 
twenty  passages  of  Scripture  for  the  sacredness  of  the  number  seven,  and 
among  them  the  seven  churches  of  Paul  (Fragm.  defabrica  mundi,  in  Cave, 
Hist,  lit.,  1720,  p.  95),  after  wlaich  singularibus  personis  scripsit  ne  excederet 
niodum  septem  ecclesiarum.  (Idem,  In  Apoc,  p.  570,  ed.  Paris,  1654.)  The 
latter  writing,  as  now  extant,  gives  no  evidence  of  the  Chiliasm  with  which 
Jerome  charges  him  (De  vir.  ill.,  18). 

Lactantius,  tutor  of  the  princes  at  the  court  of  Constantine,  belongs  as  a 
Chiliast  among  the  favorers  of  the  Apocalypse.  He  nowhere  mentions  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Eusebius,  H.  E.,  III.  3  :  "It  would  be  wrong  to  conceal  the  fact  that 
some  have  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Trphs  rr/s  pwixaiaiv  eKK\7)aias  ws 
fx^  UavAov  oZaav  avr^p  avTiXeyecrdai  <f)i]aavTes ; "  cf .  VI.  20.  Even  more  distinctly 
Jerome,  see  note  1  under  §  322. 

It  may  also  be  observed  here  that  in  the  Diocletian  persecution,  for  the 
first  time  (apparently),  the  attention  of  the  heathen  authorities  was  directed 
to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christians  as  an  important  part  of  the  foundation 
of  their  religion  and  organization,  and  they  were  demanded,  chiefly  of  the 
clergy  (among  whom,  doubtless,  they  were  almost  exclusively  to  be  found). 
(^Traditores.)  Walch,  Ketzergesch.,  Pt.  IV.  ;  Lessing,  Theol.  Nacldass.,  p.  93  ; 
A.  Frick,  De  traditoribus,  L.  1737.     [Neander,  Ch.  Hist.,  I.  148  ff.] 

314.  Matters  remained  at  this  point  until  late  in  the  fourth 
century.  The  historian  Eusebius  of  Csesarea  could  still  appeal 
to  no  decisive  authority,  least  of  all  form  for  himself  settled 
views  of  the  value  of  particular  books,  and  the  continual  un- 
certainty of  tradition,  to  which  alone  he  still  appealed,  was 
communicated  to  his  personal  opinions.  He  attempted,  so  far 
as  possible,  from  scattered  statements  of  individual  authors  of 
earlier  times,  or  from  the  usage  of  the  churches  so  far  as  known 
to  him,  to  determine  the  degree  of  apostolic  authority  which 
should  be  ascribed  to  each  of  the  books  accepted  by  the  Church, 
but  his  knowledge  was  not  sufficient  in  all  cases  to  attain  deci- 
sive results.  Hence  also  modern  scholars  have  not  always  been 
able  to  obtain  from  his  statements  a  clear  idea  of  the  state  of 
the  collection  at  that  time,  in  fact  not  even  a  trustworthy 
classification  of  the  writings  regarded  in  one  place  or  another 
as  apostolic.  The  most  certain  thing  appears  to  be  that,  aside 
from  some  differences  in  use  of  language,  Eusebius  agrees  on 
the  whole  with  Origen. 

Eusebius  (f  340)  Hist.  eccL,  III.  3, 31,  39,  and  especially  25.  Cf .  also  VI. 
13.  High  impoi'tance  of  his  testimony  because  of  its  historic  basis  and  ten- 
dency. There  are  some  contradictions  in  his  statements,  which  only  show 
all  the  more  clearly  that  no  official  decision  was  extant.  We  give  below  the 
substance  of  the  principal  passages,  together  with  additions  from  others  in 
brackets  ;  from  which  the  following  classification  results  :  — 

^  1.  Bi0\la  ofj.oXoyovfj.ei'a  ( ifSidd-rjKa,  avafjicplXeKTu,  avavTippr)Ta,  generally  recog- 
nized ;  cf.  Rettig,  De  signlf.  tu>v  ofxoXoyovn^vaiv,  Ephem.  Gi>fs.,  III.)  ;  •  •  • 
TaKTfou  ev  irpwTois  Tiiv  ayicxv  rdiv  evayyeAloiv  TerpaKTiiV  oTs  eirerai  r]  tuv  npa^ewv 
Tuv  air.  ypa(i>T)'  fiera  5e  ravTi)v  ras  TlavAou  KaraKiKTiov  eirtaroAas  [SeKUTfaaapus,  ch. 


CANONICAL  AND   UNCANONICAL  — DISTINCTION.  319 

ill.  :  'dri  ye  ix7]V  tiv\s  ^jdeTrjKacn  t^v  irphs  'EBpalovs  .  .  .  ov  S'lKaioy  ayvoelv.  VI.  14, 
a.vTi\eyoti4vri]  ah  e^fjs  rV  (pfpo/j.fvrii'  'laidvpou  irporepav  koX  ofxoiuis  ti)v  TleTpoy  Kvpai- 
Tiov  e7ri(7ToA7)f  [ch.  xiii.  :  Uhpov  )xia  ixovt)  yvncria.  .  .  7)  KeyofxevT]  irporipa  av- 
o>iioX6yriTai\-  eVl  tovtois  raKriov,  d  ye  (pave'ni,  rhv  airoKa\vil/iv  'luidwov-^ 

2.  Bi^Xia  avTiAeyofieva,  yvwptfxa  Se  toTs  ttoAAoTj  (ch.  xxxi.:  eV  TrAeJCTTais  e'/c/cArj- 
aiais  deSri/jLoa-ievixfua,  used  for  public  reading)  also  voBa  •  — 

a.  'H  Aeyo/xh-n  'laKw^ov  [II.  23  :  vodevfTai]  Kol  r)  'lovda  [VI.  14]  ")T€  Uerpov  Sev- 
repa  [III.  3  :  ovk  ifSiddrjKos,  oficos  Be  TroAAoTs  xpV'MO*  <t>avdcTa.]  Kal  7]  ouofxa^Ofievr) 
hevrepa  Kal  Tpir-q  'laidwov,  elfre  toC  evayyeKia-TOv  rvyxdvovaai  etre  Kal  erepov  ofica- 
vvfxov  eKeivcfi.  ^  ^ 

b.  'Eu  TOis  vodois  KaTareraxOo)  Kal  twv  XlaiXov  irpd^eoiv  t)  ypa(p^  '6,  re  Xeyo^evos 
■Koifxrii'  [ch.  iii.,  Loth  spoken  of  as  Antilegomena  ;  the  latter  expressly  in  some 
churches  used  as  an  indispensable  catechism,  avayKai6TaTov  oh  Se?  (TToix^twaews 
elaayooyiKTJs.  .  .  SeSvf^o(Tievfj.euov],  Kal  r)  aTroKd\v^\iLS  Xlerpov  Kal  tj  (pepofxevr)  Bapvd^a 
ewi(TTo\-n  [both  as  Antilegomena,  VI.  14], /cal  rcii^  aTroo-r.^ai  Ae7<{,a6j'ai  5i8axai  eri 
re,  tLs  e(pr]v,  f)  'icodvvou  airoKdAv^iS,  el  (pai-eir],  tj"  'T"'"  adeTovaii',  erepot  8e  eyKpivova-i 
Tois  bixoXoyovixevois.  ■^Stj  5'  ev  tovtois  ("?)  Ttres  Th  Kaff  'E^paious  evayy.  KareAe^av  .  .  . 
ravra  /xei/  irdvTa  twv  avriKeyofxevdou  hv  etr].  (Also,  IV.  13,  the  Lpistle  of  Clement, 
which,  however,  is  called  d/xoXoyovixevT]  in  III.  16,  38,  the  latter  on  account  of 
its  origin,  the  former  on  account  of  its  authority  ;  so  also  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  which  he  personally  (III.  38)  regards  as  a  translation  made  by 
Clement.) 

3.  Bi0\ia  ovSfxaTi  twv  aTrocTTSXwv  irphs  twv  alpeTiKwv  irpoaepepSfxeva.  .  ■  .  whose 
contents  -wMlaTov  oaov  ttjs  a\ridovs  op0o5o|ias  airdSova-a  .  .  .  bdev  ovS'  ev  v6dois 
avTa  KaTaKTeov,  aW'  ens  dTOtra  TvdvTri  Kal  Suffcrejiri  TrapatT7]Teov  [III.  31  :  n-ai'TeAcDs 
v6ea  Kal  rrjs  a-noaToXiKris  opOoSo^ias  a.\\6Tpi.a].  Beside,  the  Gospels  of  Peter, 
Thomas,  Matthias,  Acts  of  Andrew,  John  [III.  3  simply  :  the  Gospel,  Acts, 
Apocalypse,  and  Prsedicatio  Petri  ovk  ev  KadoMKoTs]. 

From  this  it  is  evident  (1.)  that  in  the  view  of  Eusebius  there  was  no  dif- 
ference, or  a  very  slight  one,  between  2  a  and  2  b,  so  far  as  their  ecclesiastical 
use  was  concerned,  Avith  which  alone  he  concerns  himself  ;  (2.)  that  Antile- 
gomena and  Notha  are  synonymous  terms  with  him,  inasmuch  as  he  means  to 
express  by  them  at  the  most  a  literary-historical,  not  a  dogmatic  judgment. 
Scholars  who  have  been  unable  to  find  themselves  amid  tliis  Avavering  phra- 
seology, and  Avho  doubtless  have  also  caught  the  indecision  of  Eusebius  (He- 
brews, Apocalypse),  have  very  diverse  opinions  of  his  so-called  Canon.  Cf. 
J.  E.  C.  Schmidt,  in  Henke's  Mag.,  V.  451  ff.;  C.  C.  Flatt,  in  Flatt's  Mag., 
VIII.  227  ;  VIII.  75  ;  P.  J.  S.  Vogel,  De  canone  eusebiano,  Erl.  1809  &.,  3 
Pts.  ;  F.  Liicke,  Ueher  den  Kanon  des  Eusebius,  B.  1816  :  Miinscher,  Dog- 
mengescJi.,  I.  321  ff.  ;  in  general  Dahne,  in  the  Hall.  Encykl.,  I.  39  ;  Fabri- 
cius,  BiU.  Gr.,  VI.  30. 

When  Eusebius  received  from  Constantine  the  commission  to  prepare  for 
the  churches  of  Constantinople  fifty  copies  of  the  sacred  writings  (  Vita  Const., 
IV.  36),  the  selection  of  the  books  to  be  copied  was  expressly  left  to  him  {wp 
fxdXiCTTa  T^v  t'  ertLffKev^v  Kal  ttju  xP'?"'"'  ^V  '''V^  e/c/cATjcr/as  \6yw  [false  reading 
KaTa\6yw]  dvayKaiav  elvai  yivwffKeis),  and  therefore  had  not  yet  been  officially 
fixed.  On  the  value  of  Eusebius  as  a  historian  see  the  monographs  of  C.  A. 
Kestner,  Gott.  1816  ;  J.  T.  L.  Danz,  J.  1815  ;  J.  Moller,  in  Stiiudlin's  Ar- 
chiv.  III.  ;  C.  R.  Jachmann,  in  Illgen's  Zeitschr.,  IX.  2  ;  Stiiudlin,  Gesch.  d. 
Kirchengesch.,  p.  12  ff.  ;  Baur,  Gesch.  der  Kirchengesch.,  p.  9  if. 

315.  Meanwhile  the  Church,  as  well  as  her  most  eminent 
leaders,  came  to  see  more  and  more  clearly  that  she  could  not 
distinguish  too  carefully  from  all  others  writings  upon  which 
she  placed  so  high  a  dogmatic  value.  This  conviction,  contin- 
ually growing  clearer  and  clearer,  brought  about  a  new  designa- 


320  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

tion  of  the  different  classes  of  books  in  question,  and  so  a  new 
advance  in  the  history  of  the  collection,  which  was  completed 
soon  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  ;  furthermore  the 
separation  of  a  special  class  of  writings  to  which  was  assigned 
an  inferior  value,  and  which  thus  held  an  intermediate  position 
between  those  which  were  wholly  rejected  and  those  which  were 
authoritative  in  matters  of  faith.  This  conviction  was  also  a 
principal  reason,  although  gradual  in  its  operation,  why  the 
hesitation  of  public  opinion  respecting  particular  books  could 
not  always  be  tolerated. 

It  cannot  be  emphasized  too  much  that  this  theological  conception  of  can- 
onicity  is  later  than  the  practical  distinction,  for  church  use,  of  genuine  and 
better  doctrinal  and  edificatory  books.  The  expressions  for  the  different 
classes  of  writings  here  considered,  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  sections,  refer 
to  literary-historical  and  practical  points  of  view  ;  those  now  to  be  named 
belong  to  the  school,  not  to  the  church,  and  soon  lost  their  importance  after 
the  disai)pearance  of  the  schools.  The  living  understanding  of  their  mean- 
ing was  lost  in  the  following  centuries  down  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation  ; 
the  Middle  Age  speaks  of  the  Canon  from  hearsay,  and  has  more  apocryphal 
matter,  if  not  always  in  its  Bible,  at  least  in  its  instruction,  than  the  earlier 
ages  ever  had.  It  should  also  be  remembered  that  in  relation  to  the  O.  T. 
the  state  of  the  case  in  the  synagogue  was  after  all  the  same,  inasnmch  as 
the  specific  dogmatieo-polemic  interest  was  rather  subordinate. 

316.  Thus  it  became  customary  to  call  those  books  which 
were  regarded  as  the  purest  sources  of  the  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tian truth  canonical,  meaning  those  that  served  as  the  rule  of 
faith.  The  word  canon,  which  properly  and  originally  signi- 
fied this  rule  itself,  was  afterward  used  for  the  collection  or 
catalogue  of  books  regarded  as  apostolic  and  inspired.  A  wri- 
ting was  therefore  canonical  when  sufficiently  authenticated 
tradition  placed  it  in  the  number  of  those  which  were  written 
by  inspired  Apostles  and  hence  had  decisive  authority  in  mat- 
ters of  faith.  Such  a  conception  and  definition,  one  would 
think,  should  have  led  very  soon  to  the  necessity  of  preparing 
a  publicly  authenticated  catalogue  of  such  writings,  which 
should  serve  as  a  standard  for  theology.  That  this  was  never- 
theless not  done  was  due  to  the  fact  that  in  scientific  and  eccle- 
siastical practice  the  power  of  dogmatic  tradition  was  greater 
than  that  of  the  written  letter. 

In  the  classic  authors  (Stephanus,  Thes.  ling,  grcec,  ed.  Paris)  Kavlhv  ap- 
pears originally  to  have  been  a  measuring  rod,  figuratively  any  norm  or  rule, 
e.  g.,  in  the  sciences  of  mathematics  and  language,  and  even  in  ethics.  Fi- 
nally also,  among  the  Alexandrian  litterateurs,  the  whole  number  or  body 
(not  the  catalogue)  of  authors  regarded  as  models  (classic). 

In  the  N.  T.,  Gal.  vi.  16,  rule,  principle.  Cf.  Phil,  iii,  16,  where  the  read- 
ing is  uncertain.  —  2  Cor.  x.  13  ff.,  standard,  line  of  limitation,  sphere  of  ac- 
tivity.    Both  significations  in  Clement,  Ad  Cor.  I.,  xli. 

Ecclesiastical  idea:  (1.)  Rule,  standard,  what  ovre  Trpoadfatv,  ovre  iKpaipeaiu 
5ex€Tot,  Chrysost.,  Ad  Phil.,  1.  1.     Such  a  rule  is  found  in  tradition  and  in 


DEUTERO-CANONICAL  BOOKS  — APOCRYPHA.     321 

Scripture,  considered  both  in  detail  (Iren.,  III.  11,  p.  188,  regula  veritatis,  of 
the  prologue  of  the  Gospel  of  John)  and  as  a  whole:  Clem.,  Strom.,  VI.  676  : 
Kavibv  iKK\7]aiacrrtKhs  r)  irwaiSia  Kal  ij  crv/j.<pu)vla,  uSfiov  re  Kal  twv  ■Kpo(pr]Tc!>v  TJ?  Kara 
T^v  Tov  Kvplov  irapovaiav  irapaBidofxei^r)  SiadTjKT).  Origeu,  De  princ,  IV.  9  :  the 
exposition  of  the  inspired  Scriptures  is  to  be  carried  on  in  accordance  with 
the  Kaviii'  TTJs  I.  Xp.  Kara  SiaSoxV  'J''^''  a.ixo<TT6\(iiv  oupavlov  e'/c/cArjo-ias,  the  tradi- 
tional rule  of  faith.  Chrysost.,  Horn.  58  in  Genes.,  0pp.,  IV.  566,  places 
over  against  the  Kavuv  Seias  ypafrji  the  oheloi  Koyi(7fxol.  Isid.  Pelus.,  IV.  ep. 
114,  Thu  Ko.v6va  rrjs  aA7)9eias,  ras  OeUs  <py]ix\  ypacpas,  KaTOTrTevcr(x)fj.ev. 

Accordingly  jSi/SAta  KavoviKo.,  libri  regulares,  might  properly  be  such  as  con- 
stitute or  contain  the  rule. 

(2.)  Collection  or  catalogue  of  the  books  containing  the  rule:  Canon  apost., 
85,  after  the  double  catalogue  :  radra  irepi  Kav6vcov  SiaTeTax^^-    Amphilochius 
(see  §  320),  at  the  close  of  his  catalogue,  vs.  319  :  — 
.  .  .  ovTos   a.\p€v5ea'raTOS 
Kaviiv  hv  eiT)  toiv  deoTTueiiffToou  'Ypa(pwv. 

Hence  &i^\ia  Kavovi(6fxeva  or  KeKavovi(Tfj.eva  (J.  e.  napadodeuTa  tricFTevQiVTa  re  Qeia 
ehai,  Athanas.,  Ep.fest.,  II.  38),  also  eVSia^Tj/ca,  cf.  Eusebius  above,  §  314.  Isi- 
dor.  Pelus.,  Ep.  I.  309:  ovdev  rwv  evSiadriKoiv  koI  KeKavoviajxevcov  ^i^Kioov  5e7  trpoTifiau 
els  avdyvoKTiv.  Libri  intra  canonem  conclusi,  Rufin.,  In  symbol.,  ch.  xxxvii.,  p.  165, 
Oxford  edition  ;  Pseudo-Athan.,  St/nopsis  S.  S.,  II.  96  ;  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
have  not  an  indefinite  but  a  definite  number  of  books  :  ovk  aopiara  aW' 
upifffieva  Kal  KiKavovia-fifva ;  in  the  ancient  Latin  translation  :  cej'to  canone  com- 
preliensos.  At  all  events  this  latter  definition  became  the  current  one,  and 
by  the  term  canon  there  was  always  expressed  the  idea  of  a  combination  of 
several  elements  into  a  uniform  whole,  in  which  the  dogmatic  side  is 
of  course  presupposed.  The  word  does  not  occur  in  this  sense  until  after 
Eusebius.     (For  m  Origen  it  is  only  found  at  all  in  the  translation.) 

Oeder,  Conject.,  p.  446  f.;  Augusti,  Handb.  der  ArchdoL,  II.  176  ;  H. 
Planck,  De  signific.  canonis  in  eccl.  antiqua,  in  Rosenmiiller's  Sijlloge,  I.  ; 
Credner,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Rations,  Halle,  1847,  pp.  1-68  ;  F.  C.  Baur,  Ueber 
die  Bedeutung  des  Worts  Kavwv,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.,  1858,  I. 

317.  Since  the  custom  of  public  readings  in  the  churches 
was  older  than  this  strict  distinction  of  canonical  books,  and 
the  original  selection  of  the  writings  to  be  read  was  not  made 
in  accordance  with  such  a  distinction,  its  introduction  threat- 
ened to  rob  the  churches  of  a  means  of  edification  which  from 
long  use  they  had  learned  to  love.  The  old  reading-books 
were  therefore  retained  even  when  they  were  not  canonical, 
though  in  this  case  ascribing  no  dogmatic  authority  to  them. 
They  formed,  as  it  were,  a  second  canon.  Yet  this  finer  dis- 
tinction was  naturally  only  a  matter  for  the  learned.  The 
common  people,  to  whom  purely  scientific  and  dogmatic  in- 
terests were  foreign,  or  who  at  least  could  be  aroused  upon 
such  matters  only  by  means  of  practical  and  tangible  formulas 
and  with  the  help  of  party  passion,  understood  nothing  of  them. 
Their  judgment  of  the  value  of  any  book  was  necessarily  gov- 
erned by  the  degree  of  impression  which  it  was  able  to  make 
upon  them,  and  so  must  often  have  been  wholly  different  from 
that  of  the  men  of  the  schools. 

Cf.  §§  281  f.,  294  f.  —  BijSAta  avayivoii(rK6fj.eva,  SevrepoKavouiKa,  libri  ecclesiastici. 
Athau.,  I.  C,  icrrl  Kal  erepa  /3i/3Aia  tovtcui'  e^wdiy  'oil  Ka.vovi^6fj.iva  iJ.hv  TeTUTroi/ieVo  Se 
21 


322  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

iriipa.  Tuv  narepcDV  avayivciffKeffdai  tois  &pTi  irpo(repxoiJ.fVois  Kal  jSouAoytteVois  Karjixfiff- 
6ai  rhu  tt)s  eixrefielas  \6yov.  Kufin.,  Expos,  in  Symbol.,  ch.  xxxvii. :  Sciendum  quod 
et  alii  libri  sunt  qui  nan  canonici  sed  ecclesiastici  a  inajoribus  appellati  sunt  .  .  . 
quce  omnia  legi  quidem  in  ecclesia  voluerunt,  non  tamen  proferri  ad  autoritatem 
Jidei  confirmandam. 

Among  these  belong  especially  :  — 

(1.)  The  so-called  Apocryjjha  of  the  O.  T.,  especially  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon and  of  Sirach  (Ecclesiasticus),  Judith,  Tobit  (Athanasius  reckons  Esther 
also  here,  §  320)  ;  but  not  the  additions  to  Daniel,  Ezra,  Jeremiah,  on  which 
see  the  same  section.  —  Jerome,  Prcef.  ad  Sal. :  Sicut  Judith  et  Tobite  et 
Maccahb.  libros  legit  quidem  ecclesia  sed  eos  inter  canonicas  SS.  non  recipit,  sic 
et  hcec  duo  voll.  (Wisdom  and  Eccles.)  legit  ad  cedijicationem  plebis,  sed  non 
auctorilatem  dogmatum  confirmandam.  C£.  Rufin.,  I.  c.  ;  Epiphanius  (§320)  : 
aZraL  (Wisdom  and  Sirach)  xpvctf^oi  ixev  flat  koI  wcpeAinoi  aW'  ets  apiduhv  prjrcSv 
oiiK  avacpepovrai,  Sih  ov5'  iv  rp  t^j  Sia6r)KTis  kiISutoi  (bookcase)  averedrjaav.  Cf. 
Pseudo-Athan.,  Synops.  SS. 

(2.)  The  disputed  Epistles,  where  they  did  not  yet  pass  as  canonical  (the 
Antilegomeua).     With  some,  therefore,  the  Apocalypse  also  (Cyril,  Catech., 

IV.  3G  :  TO  Tioiira  (not  generally  recognized)  e^ca  Keicrdtc  iv  Sevrtpqi.  Jerome, 
on  Psalm  cxlix.  ;  Apocalypsis  in  ecclesiis  legitur  et  rccipitur,  neque  enim  inter 
apochryphas  SS.  habetur  sed  inter  ecclesiasticas). 

(3.)  Barnabas,  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  (Euseb.,  III.  16,  IV.  23),  Her- 
nias, and  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (Athan.,  I.  c;  Euseb.,  I.  c;  Jerome,  Cat., 
10  ;  Rufin.,  I.e.,  who  adds  the  Judicium  Petri  also,  and  several  Petrine  Pseud- 
epigrapha.)  Cf.  Sozomen,  VII.  19,  and  the  appropriate  sections  of  the  First 
Book  of  this  work.  Also  Acts  of  John,  Thomas,  the  Clementines,  etc. 
(Pseudo-Athan.,  Syn.  SS, :  e'l  ai;>  ixeTecppdaOrjaav  eKXeyevra  ra  aXTjOicTepa  Kol 
dedirvevcTTa. ) 

(4.)  Homilies  of  eminent  Fathers  (Jerome,  Catal.,  115),  epistles  of  other 
churches  and  bishops  (KoivaiuiKo,  ypd/j-ixara,  epistoke  communicatorice.  ;  cf .  §  286  ; 
Eusebius,  VII.  30),  and  histories  of  martyrs  (Legendce ;  cf.  Euseb.,  IV.  15  ; 

V.  4  ;  Concil.  Carth.  III.,  ch.  xlvii. :  Liceat  legi  passiones  martyrum  quum  anni- 
versarii  eorum,  dies  celebrantur),  mentioned  especially  frequently  in  Augustine. 
Cf.  in  general  Bingham,  Origg.  eccL,  VI.,  p.  86  fiP. 

In  general  the  Church  was  obliged  to  take  under  its  protection  every  good, 
edificatory  book,  so  long  as  it  laid  down  the  principle  :  oVo  fiev  eV  eKKAriaia  fii) 
avayivwcTKerai  ravra  jUTjSe  Kara  aavrhv  dpaylvwcKe,  Cyril  of  Jerus.,  I.  C.j  cf .  Isidor. 
Pelus.,  I.,  ep.  369. 

318.  A  third  and  last  class  consisted  of  books  wbicb  bad 
fonnd  favor  bere  and  there  among  the  churches  or  with  indi- 
vidual Christians,  but  to  which  the  judgment  of  the  more  sober 
and  discerning  church  teachers  denied  not  only  all  authority 
in  matters  of  faith,  but  also  all  fitness  for  use  in  the  churches. 
These  were  called  apocryphal.  This  name  has  not  only  been 
explained  in  various  ways,  but  it  also  actually  had  different 
significations  in  ancient  times,  which  can  be  pointed  out,  but 
not  brought  into  chronological  order.  According  to  the  most 
common  and  best  known  usage,  it  means  forged  writings,  those 
bearing  false  names,  then  also  those  of  doubtful  or  heretical 
contents ;  in  many  cases,  however,  both  characteristics  were 
found  combined. 

'AirSKpvcpos'  (TvyKiKaXvunevos,  KpvirrSs.  Lk.  xii.  2  ;  cf.  viii.  17  ;  Mk.  iv.  22  ; 
Col.  ii.  3. 


DISAPPEARANCE  OF  MIDDLE  CLASS. 

Apocryphal  books  are  (1.)  those  of  which  tradition  had  no  certain  knowledge, 
quorum  origo  non  claruit  pairibus,  Augustme,  De  civit.  dei,  XV.  23.  —  Gloss 
on  Deer.  Grat.  dist.  16:  sine  certo  autore. 

(2.)  Such  as  contain  mysteries.  Clem.,  Strom.,  I.  304,  of  writings  of  ancient 
sages  or  Gnostics.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Orat.  de  ordin.,  II.  44  :  John  eV  a-n-o- 
KpiKpois  5i'  alviyiMCLTos  A^yet,  of  the  Apocalypse.  Just  so  Epi2)h.,  Hcer.,  51,  p. 
184,  of  the  same;   Sia  ra  fiadeocs  koI  crKonLvus  elprifieva. 

(3.)  Such  as  contain  things  which  are  not  tit  for  every  one's  ears,  as  the 
History  of  Susanna  (Orig.,  Ad  Afrlc,  ch.  ix.),  perhaps  also  Tobit  and  Judith 
(ibid.,  ch.  xiii.),  or  are  pernicious,  quos  in  ecclesia  legi  noluerunt,  Rutin.,  In 
Sytnb.,  I.  c,  therefore  opposed  to  the  Se5rifiocnfviJ.evaL  (j)i'Micati).  Tlie  latter 
is  the  sense  where  Apocrypha  and  public  reading-books  outside  the  canon  are 
to  be  distinguished. 

In  Iren.,  I.  20,  p.  91,  anSKpvcpa  koI  v6da  are  heretical  writings.  Athanasius, 
Ep. /est.,  aiter  enumerating  the  reading-books  and  the  canonical:  koI 'S/xais 
KaK^lvoov  Kavovi^^Ojj.ii'oov  Kal  tovtcov  avayivoiaKOjJievwv  ovSaixov  tojv  aTroKpvcpctiv  fivrjixT], 
aWa  alpeTiKoiv  eartv  imvoia  ....  Synops.  SS.,  0pp.  Athan.,  II.  55  :  the  Apoc- 
rypha are  enumerated,  although  v6da  kolI  airSlSXrjTa,  in  order  that  one  may 
know  them  (irphs  eidricriv^,  and  that  they  are  airoKpvcpris  /j.aWou  ^  avayvdaeais 
i|ia.  Const,  apost.,  VI.  16,  a.v6Kpv(pos  Is  explained  by  (pOoponotSs ,-  in  Cyril, 
Catech.,  IV.  30,  it  is  synonymous  with  both  \l/evSfmypa4>os  and  $\a^ep6s. 

Origan,  Prol.  in  Cant. :  Scripturce  appellantur  apocryphce  pro  eo  quod  multa 
in  iis  corrupta  et  contra  fidem  veram  inveniuntur  a  majoribus  tradita  ....  Illud 
tamen  palam  est  multa  ab  app.  vel  ab  evangg.  exempla  esse  prolata  et  N.  T. 
inserta  quce  in  his  scripturis  quas  canonicas  habemus  nunquam  legimus,  in 
apocryphis  tamen  inveniuntur  et  evidenter  ex  ipsis  ostenduntur  assumpta.  Also 
as  an  interpretation  in  commenting  on  Mt.  xxvii.  9  :  Suspicor  errorem  .  .  . 
aut  esse  aliquam  secretam  Jeremice  scripturam  .  .  .  sicut  et  Apostolus  scripturas 
quasdam  secretorum  profert  dicens  (1  Cor.  ii.  9);  in  nulla  enim  regulari  libro 
hoc  positum  invenitur  nisi  in  secretis  Elite  prophetoi ;  item,  quod  ait  (2  Tim.  Hi.  8) 
non  invenitur  in  publicis  SS.  sed  in  libro  secreto.  On  the  first  passage  he  adds 
that  in  such  bad  apocryphal  writings  there  was  something  true,  which  the 
apostles  were  enabled  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  select. 

319.  The  higher  became  the  authority  of  the  proper  canon- 
ical books  the  more  they  were  separated  from  all  other  literary 
productions  and  regarded  as  the  abiding  record  of  the  most 
immediate  revelation,  the  less  could  this  middle  class  maintain 
itself  as  such  in  value  and  purpose.  In  particular  those  books 
which  either  by  the  custom  of  the  churches  or  by  the  names 
which  they  bore  were  preserved  from  complete  and  strict  re- 
jection gradually  passed  into  the  highest  class.  Those,  on  the 
other  hand,  which  lacked  such  protection  or  were  acknowledg- 
edly  of  post-apostolic  origin  were  obliged  to  fall  back  into  the 
rank  of  ordinary  Christian  writings  and  dared  no  longer  lay 
claim  to  any  ecclesiastical  prerogative.  The  middle  class  en- 
tirely disappeared,  and  thenceforth  everything  was  apocryphal 
which  could  not  gain  full  entrance  into  the  canon. 

The  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude  won  their  places  because  proper  brothers 
of  Jesus  were  no  longer  acknowledged,  whence  both  the  authors  were 
admitted  into  the  list  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T.  (Tobit,  Wisdom,  Sirach)  had  commended 
themselves  as  ethical  treatises,  and  on  that  account  could  not  (in  the  West} 


324  HISTOEY  OF  THE  CANON. 

be  allowed  to  drop  out  again.  J.  Dombre,  Hist,  de  la  canonicite  des  livres 
ajwcr.  del'  A.  T.,  Gen.  1830  ;  Schulthess,  in  Theol.  Annul.,  Aug.  1829. 

On  the  canonicity  of  the  book  of  Esther  in  the  ancient  church,  see 
especially  Serpilius,  Bill.  Scrihenten,  V.  2,  p.  166  If. 

Change  of  usage  :  Jerome,  Catal.,  6  ;  Barnabas  composuit  ep.  ad  cedifican- 
dam  ecclesiam  quce  inter  apocryphas  legitur.  —  Pliilastr.,  De  Hceres.,  ch.  88  : 
Scripturce  absconditce,  i.  e.  apocryphcB,  etsi  legi  debent  morum  causa  a  perfectis, 
non  ab  omnibus  legi  debent.  —  Jerome,  Prol.  in  lieges,  after  enumerating  tlie 
Hebrew  books  :  Quicquid  extra  has  est  inter  apocrypha  ponendum.  Ep.  VII, 
ad  Lcetam:  Caveat  omnia  apocrypha,  et  si  quando  ea  non  ad  dogmatum  veritatem 
sed  ad  signorum  revereniiam  legere  voluerit,  sciat  non  eorum  esse  quorum  titulis 
prcenotantur  multaque  his  admixta  vitiosa  et  grandis  esse  prudetitice  aurum 
qucerere  in  luto.  He  evidently  means  not  heretical,  but  uninspired,  pseudepi- 
graphic  writings,  essentially  doubtless  the  so-called  Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T. 

The  confusion  that  arose  from  this  change  of  usage  is  exhibited  in  char- 
acteristic fashion  in  Isidor.  Hispal.,  Etym.,  VI.  2  :  Apocrypha  dicta  i.  e.  secreta 
quia  in  dubium  veniunt.  Est  enim  occulta  origo  nee  patet  patribus  ex  quibus 
usque  ad  nos  auctoritas  veracium  scripturarum  certissima  successione  pervenit. 
In  lis  apocryphis  etsi  invenitur  aliqua  Veritas,  tamen  propter  multa  falsa  nulla 
est  in  iis  canonica  auctoritas,  quce  recte  a  prudentibus  judicantur  non  esse  eorum 
credenda  quibus  adscribuntur.  Nam  multa  sub  nominibus  proj)hetarum  et  apos- 
tolorum  ab  hcereticis  proferuntur. 

In  the  stichometry  of  Nicephorus  (§  328,  cf .  Coutelier,  Patres  apost.,  II. 
2,  p.  289)  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  together  with  the  Acts  of 
Peter,  Thomas,  John,  Hernias,  etc.,  appear  as  Apocrypha,  certainly  with  no 
regard  to  their  doctrinal  contents. 

Cf.  in  general  J.  Trigland,  De  appellatione  libr.  apocryphorum  (in  his  Diss., 
p.  1  if.)  ;  Gieseler,  in  the  Studien,  1829,  I.  141  ;  UUmann,  Kanonisch  und 
Apokryphisch,  in  his  Sammlung  von  Streitschriften  gegen  Strauss,  1838,  p.  181. 

320.  A  direct  result  of  this  more  accurate  distinction  are  the 
catalogues  of  books  which  become  more  and  more  frequent  in 
the  theological  writers  of  the  Greek  Church  after  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  and  also  more  and  more  accordant  in 
contents.  All  seven  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  having  gradu- 
ally become  indispensable  through  the  custom  of  public  read- 
ing, finally  found  acceptance  everywhere  in  the  canon,  and  the 
individual  voices  which  were  still  raised  against  tlie  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter  were  overborne.  The  opposition  to  the  Apoc- 
alypse was  stronger  and  more  frequent.  With  respect  to  the 
Old  Testament  this  Church  held  to  the  Palestinian  canon, 
accepting  tlie  Hebrew  books  in  the  Greek  recension,  of  course, 
but  using  the  rest  only  for  reading.  The  rejection  by  some 
of  the  book  of  Esther  was  not  because  of  the  suspicious  state 
of  its  text,  but  because  of  its  offensive  contents. 

Athanasius  Alex,  (f  372),  Ep.  Festal.,  0pp.,  II.  38  f.:  In  the  O.  T.  twenty- 
two  books,  according  to  the  number  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  but  with  a  dif- 
ferent order  and  combination  than  in  Origen  ;  without  mention  of  the  Apoc- 
rypha (yet  expressly  'Upe/xlas  koI  ahv  avru  Bapohx,  Oprjvoi,  koI  dwiaroXT)^,  and 
without  Esther  ;  in  the  N.  T.  all  twenty-seven  books  without  comment. 
The  circumstance  that  the  author  introduces  his  arrangement  with  an  apol- 
ogy, as  a  venture  {To\fj.7)),  shows  in  itself  only  that  no  ecclesiastical  ordinance 
had  previously  decided  the  matter,  and  that  it  had  its  difficulties.  —  The 
Synopsis  SS.,  falsely  ascribed  to  him,  has  essentially  the  same,  but  by  way  of 


EARLY  CATALOGUES.  825 

supplement  Esther  is  said  to  be  canonical  according  to  ancient  tradition. 
The  view  of  Credner  (^Zur  Gesch.  des  Kanons,  p.  127  &.),  that  this  synopsis 
is  a  recension,  made  in  the  tenth  century,  of  a  copy,  defective  at  that,  of  the 
stichometry  of  Nicephorus,  I  can  by  no  means  adopt  ;  on  the  contrary  it  ap- 
pears to  me  clear  from  the  order  of  the  definitions,  the  uniform  position 
of  Esther,  and  the  omission  of  Maccabees,  that  it  is  a  recension  of  the  canon 
in  the  Ep.  Festalis.  Its  age  therefore  signifies  little  ;  only  the  attempted 
rescue  of  Esther  and  the  sharper  emphasis  of  the  canonicity  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse (Sex^s'^o""  Kal  4yKpi6e7(Ta  inrh  irdXai  ayiccv  koI  Trvev/xaToipSpoov  ■jrorepaij/)  show  a 
somewhat  later  date.  Only  after  tlie  point  at  which  the  Ep.  Festalis  breaks 
off,  at  the  enumeration  of  still  other  (alv  eKflyois}  autilegomena  and  apoc- 
rypha, does  its  relationship  with  Nicephorus  appear  ;  nothing  can  be  in- 
ferred from  it  as  to  priority.  This  appendix,  moreover,  betrays  both  in  its 
classification  and  in  its  formulas  a  very  obscure  conception  of  canonicity,  and 
probably  gives  only  extracts  from  various  sources,  uncritically  combined. 

Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nazianzus  (f  390),  brought  the  canon  into  a  poem 
(Cai'm.,  33):  O.T.,  twelve  historical,  live  poetical  and  five  prophetical  books; 
the  Apocrypha  and  Esther  are  not  reckoned.  In  the  N.  T.,  Gospels,  Acts, 
fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  seven  Catholic  ;  irdaas  ex^is,  et  ti  Se  tovtwv 
(Krhs  ovK  iv  yvT]aioi<;.     Yet  he  quotes  the  Apocalypse,  0pp.,  I.  516. 

Amphilochius  of  Iconium  (c.  380),  Iambi  ad  Seleucum  {0pp.  Gregor.  Naz., 
II.  194),  in  which  is  a  long  catalogue  in  verse.  At  the  close  of  the  O.  T. 
(without  the  Apocrypha),  tovtois  -KpocreyKplvovcn  tV  'Ecre^p  rivh. 

From  the  N.  T.  we  select  the  following  :  — 

Tivks  5e  (pacTi  Trjv  vphs  'ElBpalovs  v60ov 
OVK  eS  KeyovTii,  yvrjaia  yap  7]  X"P'S. 

KOLdoKlKWV  ewiffTo\£v 
Tivei  fi\v  ewTa  (paalu,  ol  Se  Tpels  fiovas 
Xprjvat  Sexscr6at     . 

T7V  5'  aTTO/caAiiif  It"  t^V  'icodpvou  traAiu 
Tives  fitv  iyKplvovaiv,  ot  irAilovs  St  ye 
v6d7]v  Keyovcriv 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (f  386),  Catech.,  IV.  p.  67,  likewise  finds  only  twenty- 
two  books  in  the  O.  T.  (expressly  with  Baruch),  and  in  the  N.  T.  omits  the 
Apocalypse  ;  also,  Catech.,  XV.,  treats  the  doctrme  of  Antichrist  ovk  e| 
airoKpvcpwv  aW'  e'k  tuv  Aavir)\. 

Epiphanius  (f  403),  Hceres.,  76  (I.  941),  cf.  De  ponder,  et  mensur.,  ch.  23 
(II.  180),  finds  in  the  O.  T.  twenty-seven  books,  which  are  also  counted 
twenty-two  by  a  strange  numerical  symbolism  and  in  still  stranger  order  : 
Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Job,  Judges,  Ruth,  Psalms,  Chronicles,  Kings,  Proverbs, 
the  Prophets,  Ezra  I.  and  II.,  Esther.  —  The  Lamentations  form  an  appen- 
dix. At  the  close  (of  the  twenty-seven  books)  of  the  O.  T.,  Wisdom  and  Si- 
rach  also  appear  as  Ouai.  ypa<pal,  but  in  Hcer.,  8  (1. 19),  in  another  enumeration, 
as  aij.<pi\eKra.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  also  appear  in  Hcer.,  80,  as  B^tos 
K6yos,  in  Hcer.,  70,  as  eV  afj.(pi\eKTCf>  a\\'  ovk  aS6Kifxoi. 

Beside  the  unfavorable  opinions  just  adduced  with  respect  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse (Gregory,  Cyril  ;  cf.  Chrysostom  in  the  last  note)  and  Esther  (Athan- 
asius,  Gregory),  there  is  still  to  be  mentioned  that  of  Didymus  Alex,  (t  392) 
against  2  Peter,  Enarr.  in  epp.  cath. :  Non  est  ignorandum  prcesentem  epistolam 
essefalsatam  quce  licet  puhlicetur  non  tamen  in  canone  est,  where  falsata,  from 
its  connection,  signifies  an  antilegomenon  (vodevirai)  rather  than  a  pseud- 
epigraphon.     Cf.  Liicke,  Qucest.  Didym.,  I.  13. 

The  school  of  Antioch  (§  518),  with  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (f  428)  at 
its  head,  had  very  free  views  of  the  canon,  and  appears  to  have  estimated 
the  value  of  the  particular  books  mostly  according  to  their  usefulness  for  the 
Church.  Hence  heterodox  opinions  on  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Canticles. 
Theodore  is  said  to  have  rejected  Job  also,  though  probably  only  as  a  his- 


326  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

tory ;  so  also  all  (?)  the  Catholic  Epistles;  see  Leontius  of  Byzantium,  Cont. 
Nestor,  et  Eutych.,  III.,  in  Canis.,  Led.  antiq.,  I.  577,  and  below,  §  3-!8,  Cosmas 
and  Juuilius.  This  school  very  likely  also  did  not  think  much  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse ;  see  Lucke,  Ojfenh.  Joh.,  337,  347  (2d  ed.  II.  642  If.). 

Chrysostoin  (f  407)  nowhere  in  his  numerous  homilies  quotes  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  only  three  Catholic  Ej^istles.  So  also  in  the  Synopsis  SS.,  as- 
cribed to  him  {Opp.,  VI.  308  ff.  Montf.),  in  which,  in  the  O.  T.  the  Apocry- 
pha, but  not  the  Apocalypse  in  the  N.  T.,  and  expressly  rwv  KaOoAiKoov  ima- 
ToXSiv  rpets.  This  is  identical  with  the  ancient  Syi-ian  canon  (§  308).  Cf. 
Opp.,  VI.  430,  in  an  anonymous  homily,  ttjj/  Sevrtpav  kuI  Tpirriv  ['Iwdwov]  ol 
TraTepes  airoKavovl^ovaiv. 

The  so-called  Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T.  were  properly  only  five  (or  six)  ; 
Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Sirach,  and  Maccabees.  The  rest  belonged  to  the 
Greek  (canonical)  texts  of  Daniel,  Esther,  and  Jeremiah  ;  so  especially  al- 
ways Baruch  and  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah.  Quotations  of  the  Fathers  from 
these  books  are  collected  by  Jahn,  EM.,  IV.  9G8  ff.  Tlie  circumstance  is 
also  noteworthy  that  it  is  only  for  the  O.  T.,  not  also  for  the  New,  that  a 
total  number  is  given  and  assigned  a  mystic  significance. 

From  the  time  of  Chrysostom  the  canonical  collection  is  called  simply 
TO.  fiifiXla  :  Homil.  IX.  in  Coloss.  :  'AKOvaare,  irapaKaXS),  koX  KraaOe  I3il3\la,  <pap- 
/xaKa  TTJs  ^vxvs'  ft  firjSfv  erepo:'  &ovKeff0e  rriv  yow  kuivtjv  KTr)(Taat)e,  tov  air6aTo\ov 
\t£v  airoaroKuv,  Montf  .J  ras  irpd^fis,  to  evayyeAia  ;  and  frequently,  see  Suicer, 
Thes.,  sub  voce. 

321.  The  agreement  of  so  many  justly  honored  Church 
teachers  and  the  power  of  custom  finally  decided  forever  the 
canonicity  of  the  sacred  books.  The  legal  confirmation  of  this 
decision  by  the  councils  is  of  no  importance  for  the  history  ex- 
cept that  the  first  attempt  at  closing  the  cancm  in  the  Greek 
Church  can  be  connected  with  a  definite  date.  This  date  is 
given  by  the  synod  which  convened  at  Laodicea  about  the 
year  360  or  somewhat  later,  which  forbade  the  public  reading 
of  any  uncanonical  books,  and  then  proceeded  to  enumerate  the 
canonical  ones,  omitting  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  and 
the  Apocalypse.  True,  the  genuineness  of  this  last  article  has 
been  disputed  ;  yet  it  is  at  all  events  the  oldest  record  of  this 
kind,  since  another,  differing  in  contents,  found  in  the  collec- 
tion of  the  so-called  Apostolic  Canons,  certainly  did  not  possess 
at  the  beginning  any  public  and  general  authority.  Later 
generally  current  ordinances  do  not  exist. 

Cone.  Laodic,  Can.  59  :  on  oh  Se?  I^iwtikovs  ^aXfxohs  (church  hymns  of 
Cliristian  origin)  \eye(r6ai  iu  rfj  iKKK-qcria,  ovSe  aKavoviara  ^ifi\lu  aWa  pi6va,  rd, 
KapoviKk  Trjs  KaivrfS  /cat  TraAaia?   Siadr]Kris. 

Can.  60  has  twenty-two  books  of  the  O.  T.  ;  Esther  stands  between  Ruth 
and  Samuel,  the  Prophets  last,  Baruch,  Lamentations,  and  the  Epistle  ex- 
pressly with  Jeremiah  ;  the  question  of  the  text  of  Daniel  and  Esther  is 
then  decided.  In  the  N.  T.  the  Catholic  Epistles  stand  before  the  Pauline, 
that  to  the  Hebrews  between  Thessalonians  and  I'imothy. 

Mansi,  II.  574  ;  L.  T.  Spittler,  Krit.  Untersuch.  des  60sten  Laod.  Kanons, 
Brem.  1777  ;  J.  W.  Bickell,  m  the  Studien,  1830,  III.  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchen- 
gesch.,  VI.  249  f.  ;  Credner,  Gesch.  des  Kan.,  219.  [Westeott,  Hist,  of  N. 
T.  Canon,  2d  ed.  p.  384  ff.  (against  the  genuineness  of  the  canon).]  The 
importance  of  the  canon  should  not  be  overestimated,  because  it  arose  only 


LATIN   CHURCH.  327 

from  a  provincial  synod.  Even  should  it  be  spurious,  the  tone  of  the  pre- 
ceding would  presuppose  an  oflicial  collection.  The  catalogue  is  in  complete 
agreement  with  that  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 

Considerably  richer,  at  the  same  time  bearing  witness  to  the  imperf  ectness 
of  criticism  or  to  the  uncertainty  of  tradition  or  theological  principles,  is  the 
85th  Apostolic  Canon  :  "Eo-tco  v/ui/  ttSo-i  K\-np^Ko7s  koI  AatKoh  /8i/3A^a  trefidcrixia  koI 
ayia  rrjs  fxey  ttoA..  StaflrJKijs  (Moses  to  Esther  in  the  present  order,  then)  'lovSld 
(though  not  in  all  the  manuscripts),  MaKica^aiuiv  rpia,  i&J/S,  v|/oA.t.,  2oAo;U.  rpla, 
irpo<prirat  .  .  .  e^aidev  Se  vfuy  wpoaiaTOpilffdco  fiavdavftu  vfj,a)V  tovs  veovs  ri)"  (Tocplav 
rod  -rroAvixaOovs  'Stpdx.  "Hixfrepa  Se  .  .  .  (four  Gospels,  fourteen  Epistles  of 
Paul,  two  of  Peter,  three  of  John,  James,  Jude),  Vi\r\iJ.iVTos  in.  5vo,  koI  al  Sia- 
Tayal  vfj.7v  to7s  eTria-KS-rrois  St'  ifiov  K\7]ij.€Vtos  4v  oktw  fii^Kiois  irpoa-jre(pwvrifievai,  &s 
ov  xph  SjifiOfftiveiu  iirl  iravTOiv  Sia  tk  iv  avrah  imkttlko.'    kcCI  al  irpd^ns  7i)xwv  tuv  airocr- 

322.  In  the  same  way,  and  only  a  few  years  later,  the  Latin 
Church  arrived  at  the  final  establishment  of  its  canon.  The 
example  of  the  Greeks,  especially  of  Origen,  had  here  also  for 
some  time  prevented  the  acceptance  of  the  five  disputed  Cath- 
olic Epistles,  but  there  was  soon  earnest  opposition  only  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  Avas  rejected  by  most  of  the 
Church  leaders  of  this  region  of  the  second  half  of  the  fourth 
century.  The  influence  of  the  oriental  custom  also  showed  itself 
with  some  in  respect  to  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  which 
were  regarded  as  books  for  edification  only.  Most  of  the  Latin 
Fathers,  however,  especially  those  of  Africa,  made  little  ac- 
count of  this  distinction. 

A  smaller  number  of  complete  catalogues.  Hilary  of  Pictavium  (f  368), 
Prolog,  in  Psalm.,  agrees  with  Origen  (even  in  respect  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  De  trinit.,  IV.  11),  and  reduces  the  O.  T.  to  twenty-two  books  (the 
Hebrew  letters),  to  which  Judith  and  Tobit  are  added  in  order  to  represent 
the  full  number  of  the  Greek  alphabet.  With  Jeremiah  the  Epistle  is  ex- 
pressly included.  He  quotes  Wisdom  and  Sirach  also  as  prophets,  but 
never  the  five  disputed  Catholic  Epistles. 

Philastrius  of  Brixen  (f  387),  De  hceres.,  ch.  88  :  Statutum  est  ah  apostolis 
et  eorum  successoribus  nan  aliud  legi  in  ecclesia  debere  catholica  nisi  legem  et 
prophetas,  et  evangelia  et  actus  app.  et  Pauli  XIII.  epp.  et  VII.  alias  qiice  acti- 
bus  app.  conjunctce  sunt.  Yet  in  ch.  60  he  accounts  as  a  heretic  him  who  re- 
jects the  Apocalypse,  and  in  ch.  89  him  who  rejects  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Evidently  notes  patched  together  from  various  sources.  The 
Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T.  are  also  here  and  there  quoted  as  genuine  prophetic 
books,  after  the  custom  of  the  West. 

Rufuius,  Presbyter  at  Aquileia  (f  410),  Expos,  in  Symbol.,  ch.  37  :  Secun- 
dum majorum  traditionem  per  ipsum  Sp.  S.  inspirata  creduntur  .  .  .  (the 
Hebrew  canon)  .  .  .  in  his  concluserunt  numerum  lihr.  V.  T.  Novi  vero  (all 
twenty-seven  books).  Hcec  sunt  quce  Patres  intra  canonem  concluserunt  et  ex 
quibus  Jidei  nostne  assertiones  constare  voluerunt.     Sciendum,  etc.  ;  see  §  317. 

The  very  wide-spread  aversion  of  the  Latins  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
is  often  mentioned  by  Jerome  (§  323),  see  In  Isa.,  iii.  6  :  latina  consuetudo 
non  recipit ;  In  Matth.,  xxvi.:  multi  latini  dubiiant,  etc.  For  a  series  of  writers 
of  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century,  of  whom  only  a  few  ascribed  the 
Epistle  to  the  Apostle  (beside  the  above  also  Ambrose),  see  Bleek,  Hebr.,  I. 
183  ff.  The  famous  commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  by  Hilarius  Dia- 
conus  (Ambrosiaster,  §  519)  did  not  take  it  up. 


828  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

What  Jerome,  Catal.,  4  and  18,  says  of  current  doubts  (a  plerisque)  re- 
specting 2  and  3  John  and  Jude,  doubtless  refers  rather  to  the  Greeks. 

323.  The  decisive  result  was  brought  about  in  the  West  by 
the  two  greatest  lights  of  that  division  of  the  Church,  the 
learned  Jerome  and  the  talented  Augustine,  both  of  whom, 
however,  lacked  a  proper  call  to  this  particuUir  work.  The 
former  brought  to  the  criticism  of  the  canon  no  courage,  the 
latter  no  learning,  and  neither  of  them  either  principles  or  in- 
dependence. The  first,  belonging  to  both  Churches  alike,  ex- 
tricated himself  by  commending  to  each  the  custom  of  the 
other,  while  the  second  was  constrained  to  conceal  his  weakness 
behind  the  authority  of  a  one-sidedly  accepted  tradition,  where- 
by the  very  validity  of  Scripture  itself  was  endangered.  In 
consequence  of  so  unscientific  treatment  there  not  only  arose  a 
canon  richer  than  that  of  the  East,  but  —  a  very  characteristic 
point  —  a  double  one,  the  authors  being  equally  orthodox, 
about  which,  after  all  decisions,  there  might  still  be  dispute. 

Jerome,  Ep.  ad  Paulln.  (0pp.,  Frankf.  III.  5,  and  all  the  older  Latin 
Bibles),  enumerates  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  in  the  following  order  :  Penta- 
teuch, Job,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Prophets,  Minor  and  Major, 
David,  Solomon,  Esther,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah.  —  Prolog,  galeat.  in 
Reges :  twenty-two  Hebrew  letters  and  five  finals,  corresponding  to  twenty- 
two  books  of  the  O.  T.,  of  which  five  are  doubled  (Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  Jeremiah)  ;  the  enumeration  in  many  respects  different,  mostly  in  the 
Hebrew  order,  but  Job  before  Psalms,  Ruth  with  Judges  ;  the  books  of  Solo- 
mon together  ;  Ezra  and  Esther  last  of  all.  .  .  .  Itaque  Sap.  Sal.  et  Jesufil. 
Sirach  et  Judith  et  Tobias  et  Pastor  non  sunt  in  canone.  Cf .  his  Prcef.  in  libr. 
Sal.  (§  317).  Prcef.  in  Toh.  :  Lihrum  Toh.  Hebrcei  de  catalago  div.  S.  S. 
secantes  .  .  .  sed  melius  esse  judico  Pharisceorum  displicere  judirio  et  episco- 
porum  jussionibus  deservire. 

For  the  N.  T.  cf .,  beside  De  viris  illus.,  ch.  i.-ix.,  Ep.  ad  Paulln.,  p.  7  : 
Tangam  et  novum  breviter  Testamentum.  Mattlueus,  Marcus,  Lucas,  p.t  Joannes 
quadriga  Domini  et  verum  cherubim.  (Cf.  Prcef.  in  Evv.,  Ad  Damas.,  and 
Prooem.  in  Matth.).  .  .  .  Paulus  ap.  ad  VII.  ecclesias  scribit,  octavo  enim  ad 
Hebrceos  a  plerisque  extra  numerum  ponitur  (non  ejus  creditur  propter  styli  ser- 
monisque  dissonantiam,  Catal.,  ch.  v.  ;  it  is  nevertheless  explained  by  a  trans- 
lation from  the  Hebrew:  hceretici  integrum  repudiarunt,  Procem.  in  Tit.); 
Timotheum  instruit  ac  Titum,  Philemonem  pro  famulo  deprecatur.  .  .  .  Actus 
App.  (quorum)  .  .  .  scriptor  Lucas  medicus  .  .  .  Jacobus,  Petrus,  Joannes, 
Judas  apostoli  VII.  epp.  ediderunt  (Jacobi  ep.  ab  alio  quodam  sub  nomine  ejus 
editur  asseritur  licet  paulatim  tempore  procedente  obtinuerit  autoritatem,  Catal. 
ii.  ;  Petri  secunda  a  plerisque  ejus  negatur  propter  styli  cum  priore  dissonan- 
tiam, Catal.  i.  ;  ex  quo  intelligimus  pro  necessitate  rerum  diversis  eum  usum  esse 
interpretibus,  Ep.  ad  Hedib.,  ch.  xi.  Joannes  scripsit  unam  epistolam  .  .  .  re- 
liquce  dure  Joannis  Presbyteri  asseruntur,  Catal.  ix.,  xviii.  Judas  .  .  .  autori- 
tatem vetustate  et  usu  meruit,  Catal.  iv.).  .  .  .  Apocalypsis  Joannis  tot  habet 
sacramenta  quot  verba.  .  .   . 

Ep.  ad  Dardan.  (III.  46)  :  Illud  nostris  (latinis)  dicendum  est  hanc  ep.  quce 
inscribitur  ad  Hebrceos  non  solum  ab  eccl.  Orientis  sed  ab  omnibus  retro  eccles. 
grceci  sermonis  scriptoribus  quasi  Pauli  ap.  suscipi,  licet  plerique  eam  vel  Barna- 
bce  vel  dementis  arbitrentur,  et  nihil  interesse  cujus  sit  cum  ecclesia^tici  viri  sit  et 
quotidie  ecclesiarum  lectione  celebretur.     Quod  si  eam  latinorum  consuctudo  non 


COUNCILS   OF   HIPPO   AND   CARTHAGE.  329 

recipit  inter  scripLuras  can.  nee  grcBcorum  ecclesice  Apocalypsin  Joan,  eadem 
libertate  suscipiunt,  et  tamen  nos  utraque  suscipimus  nequaquam  huj'us  temporis 
consuetudinem  sed  vett.  scriptorum  autoritatem  sequentes  .  .  .  yet  without  full 
conviction  apparently,  cf.  Comm.  in  Tit.,  i.,  ii. ;  In  Ephes.,n.',  In  Ez.,  xxviii., 
etc.  :  si  quis  imlt  recipere,  or  :  sive  Pauli  sive  alterius  esse  putas,  etc.  ;  In 
Amos,  viii.,  quicunque  est  ille  qui  scripsit.  .  .  .  In  Jerem.,  xxxi.,  etc. 

Since  the  often  mentioned  plerique  cannot  possibly  mean  so  many  lost 
writers,  it  is  much  more  natural  to  assume  that  in  the  time  of  Jerome  many 
churches  still  had  no  complete  copies,  because  those  books  which  had  not  yet 
become  generally  disseminated  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  had  much 
greater  difficulty  in  winning  their  way  later. 

Augustine,  De  doct.  chr.,  II.  8,  distinguishes  among  the  "  divine  "  writings 
first  the  properly  "  canonical,"  then  others  with  which  the  reading  must  not 
begin,  because  they  require  a  larger  exercise  of  judgment  ;  then  he  says  : 
Divinarum  SS.  indagator  .  .  .  tenehit  kunc  modum  in  SS.  canonicis  ut  eas  quce 
ah  omnibus  accipiuntur  ecclesiis  cath.  prceponat  eis  quas  qmedam  non  accipiunt, 
in  eis  vero  quce  non  accipiuntur  ah  omnibus,  prceponat  eas  quas  plures  gravi- 
oresque  accipiunt  eis  quas  pauciores  minorisque  auctoritatis  ecclesice  tenent.  Si 
autem  alias  invenerit  a  pluribus,  alias  a  gravioribus  haheri,  quamquam  hoc 
facile  invenire  non  possit,  cequalis  tamen  auctoritatis  eas  habendas  puto.  This 
certainly  presupposes  that  the  canon  was  not  closed  by  common  agreement, 
that  its  constituents  had  unequal  value,  and  that  this  value  depended  not 
upon  the  character  and  origin  of  the  books  themselves  but  upon  their  circu- 
lation, as  it  happened  to  be  greater  or  less  !  —  Then  a  catalogue  :  Quinque 
Moyseos.  .  ,  .  Paralipomenon,  as  a  continuous  history  ;  sunt  alice  tanquam  ex 
diverso  ordine  (Jiistorice),  quce  neque  huic  ordini  neque  inter  se  connectuntur, 
Job,  Tobias,  Esther,  Judith,  Macch.  libri  duo,  Esdrce  duo,  .  .  .  deinde  Pro- 
phetce,  in  quibus  David  unus  libr.  Psalmorum  et  Salomonis  tres  .  .  .  nam  illi  duo 
libri,  qui  Sap.  et  Eccles.  inscribuntur,  de  quadam  similitudine  Salomonis  esse 
dicuntur  .  .  .  qui  tamen  quoniam  in  auctoritatem  recipi  meruerunt  inter  pro- 
pheticos  numerandi  sunt.  Reliqui,  etc.,  the  minor  and  major  prophets.  His 
XLI V.  libris  V.  T.  terminatur  auctoritas.  In  the  N.  T.  four  Gospels,  four- 
teen Epistles  of  Paul,  Hebrews  last,  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  John,  James, 
Jude  (wanting  in  some  editions,  probably  only  from  oversight),  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

De  peccat.  merit.,  I.  27  :  Ad  Hebrceos  epistola  quanquam  nonnidlis  incerta  sit 
(magis  me  movet  auctoritas  ecclesiarum  orientalium  quce  hanc  quoque  in  canoni- 
cis habent)  quanta  testimonia  contineat  advertendum.  —  Expos,  in  ep.  ad  Rom., 
11  :  nonnulli  cam  in  canonem  SS.  recipere  timuerunt.  Sed  quoquomodo  se 
haheat  ista  qucestio.  .  .  .  Beside  frequent  quotations  of  the  Epistle  as  Pauline, 
also  undecided  and  ambiguous  ones,  Paul  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
are  introduced  in  De  Civil.  Dei,  XVI.  32,  as  two  witnesses  {sic  intellectum  est 
in  Ep.  ad  Hebr.),  and  quoted  in  Adv.  Julian.,  III.  85,  Jidelis  Jidei  prcedicator 
qui  scripsit  epistolam. 

Contra  Gaudent.,  I.  31  :  Hanc  Scr.  quce  appellatur  Maccah.  non  habent 
Judcei  .  .  .  sed  recepta  est  ah  ecclesia  non  inutiliter  si  sohrie  legatur  vel  audia- 
tur.  Cf.  De  civit.  Dei,  XVII.  20,  on  Wisdom  and  Sirach,  XVIII.  26  on 
Judith,  etc. 

On  tJerome  and  Augustine  cf.  also  §§  454,  517.  On  the  canon  of  the  lat- 
ter, Clausen,  August.,  p.  40;  Schneegans,  August.,  p.  28. 

324.  It  was  precisely  the  less  critical  view  which  attained 
legal  authority  at  several  assemblies  which  were  held  in  the 
last  decade  of  this  centin-y  at  Hippo  and  Carthage,  under  the 
personal  leadership  of  Augustine.  They  likewise  forbade  the 
public  reading   of  uncanonical  writings,   except  the  lives   of 


830  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

the  martyrs,  but  included  in  the  Old  Testament  all  the  Apoc- 
rypha or  the  so-called  Greek  canon,  and  in  the  New  the  Apoc- 
alypse and  all  the  disputed  epistles,  with  the  proviso  that  the 
confirmation  of  this  catalogue  should  be  obtained  from  Rome. 
This  was  actually  done  some  years  later  by  Bishop  Innocent, 
and  a  new  assembly  at  Carthage  only  needed  to  change  an 
equivocal  expression  in  favor  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Finally  there  appeared  a  decretal  ascribed  to  the  Roman  bishop 
Gelasius,  which  contained  a  complete  catalogue  of  all  the  ca- 
nonical books  and  the  Apocrypha ;  with  this  all  further  discus- 
sions of  the  canon  properly  ceased  or  at  least  were  decided  in 
advance. 

Concil.  Hippon.  (393  ?  in  Mansi,  III.  924);  its  Acta  are  of  doubtful  genu- 
ineness, but  the  portion  which  concerns  our  subject  (can.  36)  is  repeated 
word  for  word  in  the  Concil.  Carthag.  III.  (397,  in  Mansi,  III.  891),  can. 
47:  Ut  i^rceter  Scripturas  canonical  nihil  in  ecclesia  legatw  sub  nomine  divin. 
SS.  Sunt  autem  canonicce  SS. :  Genesis  .  .  .  Psalterium,  Salomonis  libr.  V. 
(Proph.).  Tobias,  Judith,  Hester,  Esdros  libr.  II.,  Maccab.  II.  Novi  autem 
Test.  Evv.  libr.  IV.,  Acta  app.  Pauli  ap.  epp.  XIII.  Ejusdem  ad  Hebrceos 
una,  Petri  duce,  Joannis  tres,  Jacobi  una,  Judce  una,  Apocal.  Joan,  \_ita  ut  de 
conjirmando  isto  canone  transmarina  ecclesia  coiisulaturj.  Liceat  etiam  legi 
passiones,  etc.  (see  above,  §  317). 

Innocent  I.  (Bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  405),  Ep.  ad.  Exsuperium  ep.  Tolos. 
(in  Mansi,  III.  1040) :  Qui  libri  recipiantur  in  canone  SS.  S.  hrevis  adnexus 
ostendit :  Moysis  libri  V.,  Jos.,  Jud.,  Rcgg.,  Ruth,  Prophetce  .  .  .  Salomonis 
libri  v.,  Psalt.,  Tob.,  Job,  Esth.,  Judith,  Maccab.  libri  II.,  Esdrce  libri  II., 
Paralip.  libri  II.  Item  N.  T.  Evv.  libr.  IV.,  Pauli  epp.  XIV.,  Johannis 
III.,  Petri  II.,  Jacobi,  Judce,  Act.  app.  Apocahjps.  Johannis.  Cetera  autem 
(here  he  mentions  pseudepigrapha  of  Peter,  John,  Andrew,  Thomas,  James, 
and  Matthias)  non  solum  repudianda  sed  et  damnanda  noveris. 

Concil.  Carth.  V.,  A.  D.  419  (in  Mansi,  IV.  430),  can.  29,  repeats  the  earlier 
catalogue  with  the  single  alteration:  ^jop.PawZinMmero XI F^.  .  .  .  hoc  etiam 
fratri  Bonifacio  urbis  Romce  episcopo  .  .  .  pro  conjirmando  isto  canone  inno- 
tescat  quia  et  a  Patribus  ita  accepimus  in  eccl.  legendum.  This  inquiry  in 
Rome  shows  that  no  earlier  decision  was  known,  that  the  custom  rested 
upon  no  solid  basis,  and  that  they  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Roman  usage. 

Decretum  Gelasii  I.  (c.  495)  de  libris  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  (in  Gra- 
tian,  Pt.  I.,  Dist.  15,  3  ;  Mansi,  VIII.  146)  consists,  according  to  Credner's 
comprehensive  investigation  (^Zur  Gesch.  des  Kanons,  pp.  149-290)  of  several 
parts  of  different  date,  of  which  that  referring  to  our  present  subject  is 
probably  the  latest.  How  little  the  decision,  whether  it  be  attributed  to 
Gelasius  or  be  regarded  as  later,  did  away  with  diversities  of  opinion,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  many  various  readings  in  the  numerous  extant  manuscripts.  — 
The  canon  is  thus  divided  :  (1.)  Ordo  V.  T.,  including  the  historical  books, 
Genesis  to  Chronicles,  Psalms,  three  books  of  Solomon,  Wisdom,  Ecclesias- 
ticus.  But  the  two  latter  are  wanting  in  some  manuscripts.  (2.)  Ordo 
prophetarum,  all  sixteen,  the  major  first,  the  minor  in  varying  order  in  all 
the  manuscripts.  Jeremiah  sometimes  alone,  sometimes  with  Lamentations, 
sometimes  with  Baruch.  (3.)  Ordo  historiarum,  in  varying  order :  Job, 
Tobit,  Judith,  Ezra,  Esther,  Maccabees  (sometimes  but  one  book).  (4.) 
Ordo  N.  T.,  four  Gospels,  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul  (in  many  manuserijits 
but  thirteen)  in  an  order  different  from  ours,  Hebrews  last  ;  Apocalypse  of 
the  Apostle  John  (wanting  in  some  codices);  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (very 


OTHER  NATIONAL  CHURCHES.  331 

often  standing  before  Paul);  finally  epp.  canonicce  VII.,  Peter  generally 
first ;  in  some  Joannis  ep.  una,  alterius  Joannis  preshyteri  epp.  II.  •  always 
last,  Ep.  Judce.  Ztlotis.  At  tlie  close  (after  the  list  of  orthodox  councils 
and  Fathers)  an  Index  librorum  prohibitorum  (ab  hcereticis  s.  schismaticis  con- 
scriptd),  among  which  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  The  Shepherd,  Apostolic  Canons, 
Jesus  and  Abgar,  and  many  writings  at  that  time  scarcely  known  in  the 
West,  by  which  the  decretal  shows  its  dependence  upon  earlier  documents. 

325.  Thus  the  Christian  Canon  of  Scripture  was  fixed  in  the 
two  principal  Churches  at  nearly  the  same  time  and  in  es- 
sential harmony,  though  not  without  disagreement  in  several 
particulars.  The  two  Churches  appear  to  have  set  about  the 
task  from  different  points  of  view.  The  Greek  canon  is  evi- 
dently based  upon  the  principle  of  accepting  nothing  which 
had  not  a  well-grounded  right  to  the  high  preeminence  of 
divine  origin  and  apostolic  authority  ;  the  Latin  clearly  ex- 
presses the  tliought  of  excluding  nothing  which  had  been  sanc- 
tified by  custom  and  approved  by  use.  The  one  Church  was 
eager  to  exclude,  that  it  might  not  become  too  rich ;  the  other 
toolc  good  care  not  to  become  too  poor.  The  former  sought  to 
sift  the  sources  of  doctrine,  the  latter  to  increase  the  sources  of 
edification  ;  both  indeed  without  sufficient  aids,  and  therefore 
not  in  all  respects  successful  in  their  undertaking,  yet  after  all 
guided  generally  by  a  tolerably  correct  tact,  and  not  to  be 
either  approved  or  condemned  unqualifiedly  by  a  more  critical 
posterity. 

The  abolition  of  the  middle  class,  thus  completed,  was  a  necessity  that 
must  certainly  have  been  felt  by  the  councils,  if  the  mere  reading  books 
were  not  finally  to  supplant  the  canonical,  and  the  latter  fail  of  their  pur- 
pose, face  to  face  with  religious  uncertainty  and  confusion. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Trent  no  (Ecumenical  assembly  of  the 
Church  ever  pronounced  upon  the  canon  ;  at  least  in  respect  to  the  Council 
of  Florence,  A.  d.  1441  (§  331),  there  is  a  dispute  among  the  Catholics  them- 
selves upon  this  very  point  (Welte,  in  the  Tilb.  Quarlalschr.,  1839,  p.  245), 
and  much  weiglit  has  been  laid  by  one  party  upon  the  fact  that  there  was 
given  by  the  African  councils  and  the  subsequent  pa2)al  decisions  not  an  of- 
ficial canon  of  revelation,  but  a  canon  for  the  public  readings  in  the  churches, 
and  at  Trent  the  latter  was  simply  raised  to  the  dignity  of  the  former.  J. 
Martianay,  Traite  du  Canon,  Par.  1703. 

Very  significantly,  Augustine  (when  Hilar.  Arelat.,  Ep.  August.,  226, 
charged  him  with  having  brought  in  testimony  from  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, —  testimonium  non  canonicum  omittendum),  De  prcedest.,  I.  ch.  27  ff.  : 
Nan  debuit  repudiari  sententia  libri  Sap.  qui  meruit  in  eccl.  Christi  de  gradu 
lectorum  (from  the  reader's  stand)  tarn,  longa  annositate  recitari  et  ab  omnibus 
.  .  .  cum  veneratione  divince  auctoritatis  audiri. 

326.  The  other  national  Churches,  which  stood  outside  these 
two  great  centres  of  Christian  development,  were  obliged  in 
this  matter,  as  in  all  others,  to  move  according  to  the  impulse 
communicated  to  them  from  these  centres.  Gaul  and  Spain 
especially  were  completely  dependent  upon  Rome,  and  even 
knew  the  Scriptures  only  in  the  translations  which  came  from 


332  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

or  were  commended  by  Rome.  Egypt,  Etliiopia,  Arabia,  and 
Armenia,  on  the  other  band,  although  much  less  closely  con- 
nected hierarchically  among  themselves  or  with  the  chief  seats 
of  the  Greek  ecclesiastical  power,  and  hence  possessing  their 
own  editions  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  vernaculars,  neverthe- 
less first  received  the  Bible  from  the  hands  of  the  Greeks. 
They  generally  have,  therefore,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  full 
richness  of  the  Alexandrian  Canon,  but  in  the  New,  so  far  as 
we  know,  they  sooner  or  later  obtain  the  Apocalypse.  Syria 
also,  in  the  fourth  century,  already  had  the  usual  collection,  if 
not  her  official  canon,  thus  extended. 

Pesliito  (§§  308,  426).  O.  T.  in  a  peculiar  order  :  Pentateuch,  Job, 
Joshua,  Chi'onicles,  Psahns,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Ruth,  Canticles,  Esther, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Isaiah,  Minor  Prophets,  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel.  —  The  so-called  Karkaphentian  recension  (§  427)  places  Job  after 
Judges,  the  Psalms  after  Samuel,  the  writings  of  Solomon  after  the  Proph- 
ets, then  the  book  of  the  women  (Ruth,  Esther,  Judith),  last  Sirach,  Acts, 
Catholic  and  Pauline  Epistles,  Gospels.  —  The  Hexapla  version  naturally  in- 
cludes the  Apoci'ypha  also.  Later  Syriac  versions  give  the  missing  books 
of  the  N.  T.  Eplirem  (f  378)  uses  all  the  twenty-seven  books  of  our  canon 
both  in  his  Syriac  and  his  Greek  writings  (Leugerke,''£yj^r.,  p.  1).  The 
printed  Philoxenian  version  (§  428),  it  is  true,  does  not  have  the  Apocalypse; 
but  it  is  from  a  defective  manuscript.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  stands 
last,  without  the  name  of  Paul,  which,  however,  is  lacking  in  some  other 
Epistles  also.  —  Later,  see  §  329. 

The  Ethioijic  canon  (as  it  is  described  for  us  by  Ludolf,  Hist,  ceth.,  III.  4, 
and  Comment,  ad  eandem,  p.  295)  agrees  in  number  and  arrangement  with 
the  LXX.,  and  in  the  N.  T.  is  the  same  as  our  present  Greek  canon.  But 
this  arrangement  cannot  have  been  a  lixed  one  and  probably  therefore  had 
come  under  Roman  influence.  The  use  of  apocryphal  writings  (Enoch, 
Esdras,  Apocalypse  of  Isaiah,  etc.),  some  of  which  are  even  found  in  manu- 
scripts of  the  Bible,  shows  that  the  idea  of  the  canon  must  have  been  long 
unsettled.  The  Ethiopic  Church  obtained  through  the  so-called  Apostolic 
Canons  an  official  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books,  but  in  several  differing  re- 
censions, so  that  only  the  figures  of  the  whole  number  of  the  books  (81),  but 
not  their  names,  were  constant  (A.  Dillmann,  in  Ewald's  Jahrb.,  V.  144  ;  cf. 
Ewald,  in  Lassen's  Zeitschr.,  V.  164).  These  figures  did  not  exclude  a  vary- 
ing number  in  the  O.  T.  and  required  the  extension  of  the  N.  T.  by  the 
eight  books  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  or  Canones  concil.  (the  so-called 
Synodi). 

The  Armenian  canon  (according  to  printed  editions)  likewise  follows  the 
LXX.,  but  places  the  three  books  of  the  Maccabees  with  the  other  historical 
books  ;  has  some  transpositions  in  the  Prophets,  places  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  before  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  and  relegates  Sirach,  a  second  recen- 
sion of  Daniel,  Manasseh,  and  3  Corinthians,  together  with  the  account  of 
the  death  of  Jolm,  to  an  appendix  after  the  N.  T. 

Cf .  in  general  the  appropriate  sections  of  the  Fourth  Book.  It  may  be 
observed  in  passing  that  both  in  the  Syrian  and  in  the  Armenian  Church,  in 
the  former  in  ancient  times,  in  the  latter  in  modern,  an  exegetical  literature 
has  attached  itself  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  of  which,  liowever,  only  the 
former  has  been  partially  known  and  studied  in  Protestant  circles  (§  517), 
while  the  latter  has  scarcely  appeared  at  all  save  in  catalogues  of  books. 

327.  The  investigation   of  the   canons  of   religious  parties 


HEKETICAL  SECTS.  333 

standing  more  or  less  apart  from  the  Catholic  Church  prop- 
erly belongs  to  the  history  of  doctrines  rather  than  here.  Yet 
there  is  in  reality  but  little  to  say,  since  the  older  sects,  which 
had  arisen  before  the  closing  of  the  canon,  gradually  disap- 
peared from  the  stage,  and  the  later  ones  did  not  depart  from 
the  Catholics  in  this  point.  The  conti-oversies  with  Arians, 
Novatians,  and  some  others  doubtless  led  to  partisan  judg- 
ments respecting  cme  or  another  biblical  book.  The  greatest 
divergence  was  in  the  case  of  the  Manicheans,  who,  being  dual- 
ists, were  properly  alien  to  Christianity.  In  their  canon,  how- 
ever, the  question  was  not  so  much  of  a  selection  of  books  as 
of  far-reaching  theological  principles  respecting  the  relation  of 
Scripture  and  Spirit  in  general. 

It  has  already  been  stated,  in  the  sections  referring  to  the  subject  in  the 
First  Book,  that  the  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine,  at  least  until  into  the 
fifth  century,  had  their  own  sacred  literature,  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews, 
Gospel  of  Peter,  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  etc. 

It  is  also  to  be  remembered  that  the  Arians  (though  not  all,  and  not  from 
the  first,  Bleek,  Hehr.,  I.  164  If.)  denied  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  by  Paul,  and  rejected  it  ;  cf.  Theodoret,  In  Hehr.,  beginning  ;  idem  (?), 
Dial,  de  trin.,  p.  922,  Hal.  Of  the  Goths  in  particular  and  their  Arianism, 
see,  with  reference  to  our  question,  Massmaun,  iSkeireins,  p.  65  if.,  and  the 
introduction  to  his  edition  of  Ulfilas.  It  has  not  yet  been  discovered  that 
Ulfilas  (§  444)  translated  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  and  the  traces  of  its 
use  by  the  author  of  the  Skeireins  are  uncertain.  Yet  we  know  that  Arians 
as  well  as  Novatians  found  Scriptural  proofs  of  their  doctrines  in  it,  §  313; 
cf.  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  69  :  (pvaei  avT^v  avaipovvres  airh  tov  a.TroaT6\ov  .  .  .  rb  Se 
p7)Thv  .  .  .  KaKws  iKSexofrat,  that  is  by  false  interpretation  of  ch.  iii.  1,  2. 

On  the  Alogi,  who  rejected  the  Johanuean  writings  altogether,  see  Epiph., 
Hcer.,  51  (I.  424). 

We  can  only  speak  of  a  canon  among  the  heretics  in  an  improper  sense, 
since  as  a  rule  they  knew  at  the  most  only  an  apologetic  use  of  Scripture, 
giving  to  apostolic  utterances  a  significance  favoring  their  interests  ;  but  not 
an  official  theological  one,  in  the  sense  of  building  their  dogmatics  from  the 
foundation  upon  a  collection  of  sacred  books. 

What  some  (Kirchhofer,  p.  508,  and  before  him  Gerhard  of  Maestricht, 
l.  c.)  adduce  as  a  special  canon  of  the  Nestorians  is  properly  the  beginning 
of  a  Bibliotheca  Syriaca  (Ebedjesu,  Catal.  Script.,  ed.  A.  Ecchellensis,  Rome, 
1650),  in  which  some  modern  Jewisli  works  stand  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  with  which  latter  the  enumeration  of  the  Christian  literature 
then  begins.  The  O.  T.  has  the  canon  of  the  LXX.,  although  so  arranged 
that  the  books  of  Ezra,  Tobit,  Judith,  Esther,  Daniel  parvus  (?),  and  Mac- 
cabees stand  at  the  end.     See  also  Asseman,  Bihl.  or..  III.  1,  p.  5  ff. 

The  Manicheans  rejected  the  O.  T.  altogether  (cf.  §  330)  and  only  ac- 
cepted the  New  as  an  incomplete  record  of  history  and  doctrine.  Princi- 
pal source,  Augustine,  Contra  Faustum  Manich.  II.  XXXIII.  Cf.  Lardner, 
Credibility,  etc.,  II.,  p.  635  ff.  ;  Miinscher,  Dogmengesch.,  III.  93;  Heilmann, 
De  aucloritate  II.  N.  T.  ap.  Manichceos  (0pp.,  I.  73);  F.  Trechsel,  Ueber  den 
Kanon,  die  Kritik,  u.  die  Exegese  der  Manich.,  Bern,  1832  ;  [Beausobre,  Hist, 
de  Manich.,  I.  297  f.]  ;  Kirchhofer,  Quellens.,  p.  434,  and  the  church  histo- 
rians in  general.  See  also  Diestel,  Gesch.  des  A.  T.  in  der  chr.  Kirche,  p. 
113. 

328.  After  the  decisions  of  the  councils  no  serious  opposi- 


334:  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

tiou  to  any  part  of  the  canonical  collection  could  be  thought 
of,  —  at  least  nothing  of  the  kind  could  have  counted  upon  any 
result  during  the  whole  period  of  the  so-called  Middle  Age. 
On  the  one  hand  the  matter  was  regarded  as  settled  ;  on  the 
other  the  historical  and  critical  preparatory  knowledge  of  the 
theologians  was  far  too  small  for  any  of  them  to  be  able  to 
tcike  up  such  a  question.  Of  the  doubts  formerly  raised 
against  particular  books  there  remain  only  confused  reminis- 
cences, which  soon  vanish.  Yet  these  books  doubtless  circu- 
lated much  more  slowly,  and,  especially  with  reference  to  the 
Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  science,  although  so  dependent 
upon  the  Church,  never  wholly  yielded  her  prerogative  to  cus- 
tom. 

Euthalius  (§  377)  still  brings  up  the  old  grounds  of  doubt  against  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  order  to  oppose  it  (in  Zacagni,  p.  669),  and  for 
the  first  tiuie  divided  off  the  Catholic  Epistles  for  the  regular  church  read- 
ings. 

Cosmas  (Z)e  mundo,  VII.  p.  292,  Montf.),  c.  535  A.  D.,  appeals  boldly  to 
Ireujeus,  Eusebius,  Athaiiusius,  the  Syrian  Church,  and  others,  for  support  in 
rejecting  all  the  Catholic  Epistles  :  Tax  KaQoKmas  aviKaOev  tj  iKicXrjcric  a.fi(pt0u\- 
Aofievas  ex^'  '""^  •  •  •  oure  eis  ahr^v  \6yov  eirot7]craTo,  aAA.'  ol  Kavoviaavr^s  rets 
evSiadeTous  Pi^\ovs  iravTiS  dis  afi(ptfi6\ovs  avras  edr]Kav  .  .  .  oil  XPV  '''^v  reAeiov 
XpLCTTLavhv  SK  tQv  afji.(pi^.  (jTTjpt^'ecrflat.  Which  only  shows  the  absence  of  any 
absolutely  binding  decision. 

Leontius  Byz.  (c.  560),  De  seeds,  ch.  ii.,  has  but  twenty-two  books  m  the 
O.  T.,  without  Esther. 

In  the  Latin  Church  the  more  frequent  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
does  not  begin  until  after  450,  Bleek,  I.  c,  p.  320  fP. 

Cassiodorus  (f  562),  De  divin.  lectt.,  ch.  xii.-xiv.,  gives  several  catalogues, 
two  complete,  with  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha,  from  Augustine  and  the  LXX. 
(from  his  own  copy,  it  is  doubtless  to  be  understood),  containing  seventy-one 
and  seventy  books  (the  latter  luimber  on  account  of  the  accidental  omis- 
sion of  Ephesians),  for  which  types  are  found  in  the  O.  T.  ;  a  third  one, 
from  Jerome,  of  forty-nine  books,  vpithout  the  Apocrypha,  which  ho  defends 
in  similar  manner,  without  pointing  out  the  cause  of  the  great  difference. 
Ch.  xi.  :  Nunc  videamus  quemadmodum  lex  dioina  tribus  generihus  divisionum  a 
diversis  patribus  fuerit  intimata  quam  tamen  veneratur  et  concnrditer  suscipit  ec- 
clesia.  Ch.  xiv.  :  Omnia  tria  genera  divisionum  non  impugnare  sed  invicem  se 
potius  exponere  videntur,  which  is  nonsense  unless  one  remembers  that  here 
also  the  ecclesiastical  and  practical  standpoint  entirely  displaces  the  theo- 
logical. It  is  noteworthy  tliat  (ch.  viii.)  he  had  Chrysostom  upon  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  translated,  because  there  was  as  yet  no  Latin  commentary 
upon  it  in  existence.  On  him  see  (§  522)  F.  D.  de  Sainte-Marthe,  Vie 
de  Cassiod.,  Par.  1695;  Schrockh,  XVI.  128;  St'audlin,  in  the  Kirchenhist. 
Archiv,  III.;  Lorentz,  in  the  Hall.  Enq/kl.,  I.  21. 

A  wholly  different  division,  probably  from  an  ancient  oriental  (Antio- 
chene  ?)  document,  in  Junilius,  De  partihus  legis  div.,  I.,  ch.  3-7  (m  Africa, 
c.  550):  (1.)  historical  books  ;  Pentateuch  to  Kings,  Gospels,  Acts,  quibus 
adjungunt  plnres :  Chronicles,  Job,  Ezra,  Judith,  Esther,  Maccabees  ;  (2.) 
prophetic  books  :  all  sixteen,  together  with  Psalms.  Also,  the  Apocalypse, 
de  quo  apud  orient,  maxime  duhitatum  ;  (3.)  lihri  proverlnnles :  Proverbs  and 
Sirach.  Adjungunt  quidam  Sap.  et  Cant.  •  (4.)  libri  slm.jiUcis  doctrince :  Eccl. 
Pauli  epp.  XIV.,  Petri  I.,  Joh.  I.,  quibus  adjungunt  quam  plurimi  the  remain- 


THE   MIDDLE   AGES.  335 

ing  five  epistles.  At  the  close  another  division  is  made,  into  lihri  perfectCB 
auctoritatis  (those  from  the  first  called  canonical),  libri  medice  auctoritatis, 
quos  adjungi  dix'unus  a  pluribux,  and  lihri  nullius  auctoritatis,  reliqui  omnes, 
according  to  an  nnintelligible  statement  also  Canticles  and  Wisdom.  Cf. 
Hoffmann,  in  the  Hall.  Encykl.,  II.  29. 

Anastasins  Sinaita,  Patriarch  of  Antioch  (f  599),  holds  strictly  to  the  canon 
of  Laodicea  ;  sixty  books,  i.  e.  thirty-four  in  the  O.  T.,  without  the  Apocry- 
pha, twenty-six  in  the  N.  T.,  without  the  Apocalypse. 

Pope  Gregory  I.  (f  604)  excuses  himself  for  quoting  a  passage  from  Mac- 
cabees (il/or.  in  Job,  Bk.  xix.,  ch.  17)  by  saying  that  he  brings  forward  ex 
libris  licet  non  canonicis  sed  tamen  ad  eccl.  cedijicationem  editis  testimonium. 
The  book  of  Tobit  is  quoted  (x.  6)  as  quidam  Justus  ;  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon (v.  25;  vi.  7;  xix.  13)  as  quidam  sapiens  (yet  elsewhere  as  Scriptura 
and  Solomon).  Of  Paul  it  is  said  (xxxv.  25):  quamvis  epp.  XV.  (Laodi- 
ceans  ?)  scripserit  sancta  tamen  ecclesia  non  amplius  quam  quatuordecim  tenet; 
that  is  to  say  10  +  4,  i.  e.  Law  and  Gospel ! 

Isidore  of  Seville  (f  636),  De  offic,  I.  12,  and  Etym.,  VI.  2,  also  in  the 
Liber  prouemiorum  in  V.  et  N.  T.,  at  the  beginning,  in  the  O.  T.,  places  the 
Apocrypha,  together  with  Esther,  at  the  end  (quartus  ordo.  .  .  quibus  auc- 
toribus  scripti  sint  minirne  constat)  ;  and  in  the  N.  T.,  combines  without  com- 
ment the  two  contradictory  statements  of  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul  and  seven 
churches  to  which  he  Avrote.  Ad  Hebrceos  ep.  plerisque  latinis  incerta.  — But 
of  all  these  books,  the  Apocrypha  included,  it  is  said  :  hi  sunt  scriptores  ss. 
II.  qui  per  Sp.  S.  loquentes  ad  eruditionem  nostram  et  prczcepta  vivendi  et  cre~ 
dendi  regulam  conscripserunt ;  and  in  his  Liber  prooem.,  at  the  beginning,  he 
expressly  reckons  Tobit,  Judith,  and  Maccabees  among  the  SS.  canonicce  ;  in 
De  offic,  I.  c,  it  is  said  that  Wisdom  is  rejected  by  the  Jews  from  the  canon 
on  account  of  its  testimony  to  Christ.  He  also  mentions  the  older  doubts 
respecting  the  Antilegomena. 

An  anonymous  English  writer,  De  mirabil.  SS.  (0pp.  August.,  XVI.  ed. 
Bassan),  II.  32,  34,  refuses  to  accept  the  mii'acles  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  and 
the  Maccabees,  quod  in  auctoritate  divince  Scr.  non  habentur. 

Condi.  Tolet.  IV.,  a.  d.  633  (in  Mansi,  X.  624),  can.  17,  condemns  those 
who  reject  the  Apocalypse  and  will  not  preach  upon  it  according  to  custom 
between  Easter  and  Pentecost;  librum  multorum  conciliorum  auctoritas  et  sy- 
nodica  prcesulum  rom.decreta  Joannis  Ev.  esse  perscribunt  et  inter  divinos  II.  re- 
cipiendum. Probably  in  consequence  of  a  Catholic  reaction  against  the  Ari- 
anism  formerly  prevalent  among  the  Western  Goths,  and  at  the  same  time 
in  the  interest  of  the  Latin  Bible  against  the  Gothic. 

The  council  of  Constantinople,  A.  D.  691  {quinisexta,  i.  e.,  making  enact- 
ments supplementary  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  ecumenical  councils  ;  or  Trullana, 
from  its  place  of  meeting  in  the  palace,  see  Mansi,  XL  939),  can.  2,  confirms 
the  so-called  Apostolic  Canons,  and,  among  other  synodal  decrees,  those  of 
Laodicea  and  Carthage  ;  it  does  not  therefore  appear  to  have  found  it  neces- 
sary to  go  into  any  more  accurate  definition  of  the  canon,  and  perhaps  did 
not  even  suspect  that  it  was  giving  its  sanction  to  contradictory  judgments 
respecting  the  Scriptures. 

John  of  Damascus  (f  754),  Defide  orth.,  IV.  17,  has  a  peculiar  division  of 
the  O.  T.,  into  four  pentatenchs  :  (1)  fj  vofiodeaia  ;  (2)  toi  7po(^e»a  (Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles  ;  (3)  al  cnxvp^is  ^i0\oi  (Job,  Psalms,  the 
books  of  Solomon)  ;  (4)  »;  irpocp-qTMr].  Besides,  as  an  appendix,  Ezra  and 
Esther.  —  Wisdom  and  Sirach  evaperoi  fj-ev  koI  Kakal  a\\'  om  apiQuovvrai  uiiSe 
e/cejcTo  iu  rrj  Ki^drco  (see  Epiphanius,  §§  317,  320).  In  the  N.  T.,  he  has  all 
twenty-seven  books  and  the  Apostolic  Canons. 

The  Council  of  Nicsea,  A.  d.  787,  interdicts,  among  others,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Laodiceans,  although  it  is  ev  ncn  ^t0\lois  eyKetjiteVij.  In  other  respects  it 
confirms  the  canons  of  the  Condi.  Trull. 


336  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

Charlemagne  took  pains  to  secure  pure  and  correct  manuscripts  of  the  Bi- 
ble ;  that  he  caused  the  canon  itself  to  be  regulated  is  not  to  be  assumed. 
When  the  synod  of  Aachen,  A.  D.  789  (Baluzius,  CapituJ.  regg.  franc,  I.  221), 
appealed  to  that  of  Laodicea,  this  signified  not  the  exclusion  of  the  Apocry- 
pha and  the  Apocalypse,  but  the  maintenance  of  the  fifty-ninth  canon  (§  321). 
Pope  Adrian  I.  had  sent  the  king  the  epistle  of  Innocent  to  Exsuperius 
(§  324)  to  mforni  him  concerning  the  canon. 

The  stiehonietry  which  Nicephorus,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  828), 
adds  to  his  Chronography  still  bears  witness  to  the  tenacity  of  ancient  views. 
In  the  O.  T.  twenty-two  books,  including  Baruch,  but  not  Esther.  The  N. 
T.  without  the  Apocalypse.  As  Antilegomena,  beside  those  already  men- 
tioned, Susanna,  Maccabees,  Odae,  Solomon,  Apocalypses  of  John  and  Peter, 
Barnabas,  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  Finally  also  a  great  mass  of 
proper  A2:)oerypha  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  on  which  see  §  319. 
The  same  document  is  translated  in  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  (f  c.  886), 
Hist.  eccL,  p.  101.  Cf.  Creduer,  Ziir  Gesch.  des  Kanons,  p.  95  £f.,  and  §  320. 
If,  as  is  conjectured,  this  portion  is  of  ancient  origin,  it  is  all  the  more  re- 
markable that  an  orthodox  church  dignitary  could  have  satisfied  a  later  age 
with  it. 

Hrabanus  Maurus,  Archbishop  of  Maycnce  (f  85G),  De  instil,  cleric,  II. 
53,  5 1,  has  a  complete  canon  of  seventy-two  books,  and  mentions  the  ancient 
doubts  respecting  the  Antilegomena,  all  word  for  word  from  Isidore.  In 
the  Prolog,  ad  Sap.  he  says  of  the  Apoeryjiha  of  the  O.  T.,  with  respect  to 
Jerome  :  Hos  moderno  tempore  inter  SS.  enumerat  ccclesia  legitque  eos  sicut  cet- 
eras  canonicas. 

His  contemporary,  Haymo  of  Halberstadt  (f  853),  Hist,  sacr.,  III.  3,  still 
finds  occasion  to  defend  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  from  wliich  nothing 
more  can  be  inferred  than  that  he  had  read  the  defense  in  earlier  writings. 
We  pass  over  many  catalogues  in  writers  of  this  and  later  periods  as  without 
interest  for  our  history. 

Notker  Labeo  of  St.  Gall  (f  912),  De  viris  ill.,  ch.  iii.,  still  says  of  the 
Apocrypha,  Esther,  and  Chronicles:  Noi pro  auctoritate  sed  tantum pro memo- 
ria  et  admiratione  hahentur. 

The  slower  circulation  of  the  books  once  disputed  is  shown  also  by  the 
proportionally  greater  rarity  of  copies  of  the  Apocalypse  (§  392),  by  the 
lack  of  stiehometry  in  them  (§  377),  and  by  the  frequent  omission  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  from  among  the  Pauline  Epistles  (Cod.  D  has  it  by 
a  later  baud,  or  at  least  is  derived  from  an  original  in  which  it  was  omitted  ; 
F  has  it  only  in  Latin,  G  not  at  all  ;  cf.  §  302).  The  very  fact  that  double 
as  many  manuscripts  exist  of  the  Gospels  as  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  them- 
selves shows  that  no  theological  idea  of  the  canon,  but  practical  needs, 
shaped  the  Bible. 

Other  peculiarities  in  the  manuscripts  :  Cod.  A  has  two  epistles  of  Clem- 
ent in  the  N.  T.  ;  Cod.  Sinaiticus  includes  Barnabas  and  Hermas  ;  Cod.  G 
gives  at  the  close  at  least  the  superscription  (not  the  text)  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Laodiceans. 

A  stiehometry  given  by  Coutelier  (Pair,  apost.,  I.,  Prcef.  ad  Barn.),  has 
the  following  peculiar  catalogue  :  Genesis  —  Chronicles,  Psalms,  five  books 
of  Solomon,  sixteen  prophets,  three  books  of  Maccabees,  Judith,  Ezra,  Esther, 
Job,  Tobit,  Gospels  of  Matthew,  John,  Mark,  Luke,  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the 
Romans,  1  and  2  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  1  and  2  Timothy,  Titus, 
Colossiaus,  Philemon,  1  and  2  Peter,  James,  1,  2,  and  3  John,  Jude,  Barna- 
bas, Apocalypse,  Acts,  Hermas,  Acts  of  Paul,  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  Ex- 
actly the  same,  with  the  omission  of  Chronicles,  is  also  found  in  the  Cod. 
Claromontanus,  ed.  Tischendorf,  p.  468.  In  this  catalogue  the  omission  of 
Philippians  and  Thessalonians  is  doubtless  only  a  clerical  error,  the  desig- 
nation of  the  Epistles  of  Peter  ad  Petrum  the  result  of  thoughtlessness,  the 


MEDIEVAL  TESTIMONY  RESPECTING  THE  CANON.      337 

mention  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  before  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Acts  a 
proof  of  African  origin,  inasmuch  as  we  are  donbtless  to  understand  by  it 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Tert.,  De  pudlc,  ch.  xx.) ;  the  last  three  num- 
bers, however,  point  back  to  a  date  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  canon  of  the  ancient  Cod.  Amiatinus  (§  456)  comes  very  near  to  that  of 
our  present  Bible  (only  somewhat  differently  arranged  ua  the  O.  T.);  see 
Kaulen,  Gesch.  d.  Vulgata,  p.  217. 

The  more  strange  these  catalogues  are,  the  more  do  they  show  the  slight 
theological  and  practical  interest  which  attached  to  the  matter,  and  it  would 
be  very  incorrect  to  infer  from  it  a  great  degree  of  independent  judgment  ; 
these  free  utterances  only  sliow  that  orthodoxy  was  not  looked  after  so 
sharply  in  the  matter  of  the  canon  as  in  other  things.  The  scientific  doubts 
in  reality  no  longer  existed,  but  each  writer  plumed  himself  upon  his  read- 
ing and  failed  to  attain  historical  accuracy  at  all,  e.  g.,  Thomas  Aquinas, 
Prol.  in  Ep.  ad  Hebr.  :  Sciendum  est  quod  ante  Synodum  Nictenam  quidam 
duhitarunt  an  ista  ep.  esset  Pauli. 

329.  But  one  would  be  greatly  mistaken  if  he  should  sup- 
pose that  in  this  age,  amid  the  manifold  other  discussions  of 
the  scholastic  theology,  questions  of  this  kind  were  taken  up  at 
all  thoroughly.  Dogma  no  longer  depended  upon  the  word  of 
Scripture,  but  the  latter  upon  the  traditionally  accepted  inter- 
pretation. But  it  is  to  be  expressly  emphasized  in  a  history 
of  the  canon  that  through  the  actual  and  practical  use  of  the 
Scriptures  in  that  age  the  theological  conception  of  the  canon, 
which  had  never  been  the  prevailing  one,  was  completely  lost. 
The  historical  content  of  the  Bible,  as  it  was  laid  down  in  the 
books  or  preached  to  the  people,  was  so  permeated  through 
and  through  with  apocryphal  additions  that  the  critical  ques- 
tion as  to  the  source,  or  the  theological  judgment  as  to  the  his- 
torical value,  was  evidently  subordinate  to  the  edificatory  pur- 
pose and  the  domination  of  taste.  In  like  manner  patristic 
glosses  were  mingled  with  the  text  as  of  equal  value,  at  least 
for  use.  The  properly  doctrinal  writings  of  the  Bible  disap- 
peared from  the  Church  almost  entirely. 

On  Bible  matters  during  the  Middle  Age,  historical  and  metrical  Bibles, 
annotated  Bibles,  see  below,  §§  4G1  ff.,  522  ff.  E.  Reuss,  Fragmens  litteraires 
et  critiques  sur  Vhist.  de  la  Bible  franpaise,  1852  (in  the  Strassb.  Revue  de 
The'ol.,  IV.  1  ff.).  Almost  every  manuscript  of  a  medifeval  translation  or 
recension  gives  peculiar  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  distinction  between  canon- 
ical and  apocryphal  had  vanished.  See  especially  Ott,  in  Simler's  Samml.,  I. 
3,  p.  713  ff.  ;  E.  Reuss,  in  the  Strassb.  Beitrdge,  VI. 

Theological  testimonies  of  this  period  respecting  the  canon  :  Petr.  Cluniac. 
(f  1156),  Ep.  2,  Bk.  I.  :  Restant  post  hos  authenticos  S.  S.  II.  sex  non  reticendi 
lihri  (Wisdom,  Sirach,  Tobit,  Judith,  Maccabees)  qui  etsi  ad  illarn  subllmem 
prcEcedentium  dignitatem  pa-venire  non  potuerunt  propter  laudabilem  tamen  et 
pernecessariam  doctrinam  ab  ecclesia  suscipi  meruerunt.  —  Hugo  a  S.  Victore 
("f  1141),  Elucid.  de  S.  S.,  ch.  vi.:  Omnes  ergo  Jiunt  numero  XXII.  Sunt 
prceterea  alii  quidam  libri  .  .  .  qui  leguntur  quidem  sed  non  scrihuntur  in  canone. 
He  counts  the  N.  T.  eight  books  (four  Gospels,  Acts,  Paul,  Catholic  Epis- 
tles, Apocalypse).  The  Church  Fathers  have  equal  rank  with  those  books 
which  non  scrihuntur  in  canone  tamen  leguntur.  —  Richard  a  S.  Victore 
22 


338  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

(t  H70),  Except.,  II.  9,  repeats  the  same.  John  of  Salisbury,  Bishop  of 
Chai'tres  (f  1182),  Ep.  172  ad  Henric.  Coinit.,  says  with  respect  to  the  diver- 
gent catalogues  in  Cassiodorns:  Sed  hoc  credutur  an  alterum  nullum  affert 
salntis  dispendium  ....  Quia  ergo  de  numero  librorum  diversas  pair,  sententias 
lego,  cath.  eccl.  doctorem  Hieronymum  sequens  .  .  .  prohatissimuvi  XXII.  lit- 
eras  hehr.  et  llhros  V  T.  .  .  credo.  The  Ajjoci-ypha  (among  which  also  be- 
longs The  Shejjherd,  which  he  admits  he  never  saw)  quia  Jidem  et  religionem 
cedijicant  pie  admissi  sunt.  In  the  N.  T.,  also,  for  the  sake  of  completeness, 
he  speaks  of  former  doubts  ;  the  following  is  characteristic:  Quindecima 
quce  ecclesice  Laodicensiwn  scrihitur,  licet  (ut  ait  Hieronymus)  ab  omnibus  ex- 
plodatur,  tamen  ab  apostolo  scripta  est.  A  gloss  in  the  Decret.  Gratiani  (Pt.  I., 
dist.  19,  ch.  6)  gives  respecting  the  books  found  in  the  canon  the  following 
noteworthy  definition  :  Potest  esse  quod  omnes  recipiantur,  non  tamen  quod 
omnes  eadem  veneratione  habeantur.  All  these  remarks  betray,  not  at  all  a 
critical  interest  in  the  matter,  but  the  absence  of  any  practical  one.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  texts  of  the  Byzantine  canonists,  first  collected  by 
Credner  (Gesch.  des  Kanons,  251  ff.),  who  contented  themselves  with  deter- 
mining the  authorities  which  should  decide  in  matters  relating  to  the  Bible, 
and  left  it  to  the  theologians  to  adjust  them  one  to  another,  a  task  which  the 
latter  doubtless  took  good  care  not  to  attempt. 

The  doggerel  verses  which  Hugo  de  S.  Caro  (f  1263)  gives  in  his  Postille, 
Prcef.  in  Josuam,  return  to  the  Hebrew  order  of  the  books  so  far  as  the  metre 
permits  :  — 

Quinque  lihros  Moysi  Josue  Judicum  Samuelem 

Et  Malachim  ;  ires  prcecipuos  bis  sexque  prophetas, 

Hebrceus  reliquis  censet  prcecellere  libris. 

Quinque  vocat  Legem,  reliquos  vult  esse  prophetas. 

Post  hagiographa  sunt  Daniel  David  Esther  et  Esdras 

Job  Paralipomenon  et  tres  libri  Salamonis. 

Lex  vetus  his  libris  perfecte  tota  tenetur. 

Restant  Apocrypha  Jesus  Sapientia  Pastor 

Et  Macchabceorum  libri  Judith  atque  Tobias. 

Hi  quia  sunt  dubii  sub  canone  non  numerantur, 

Sed  quia  vera  canunt  ecclesia  suscipit  illos. 

Nicolaus  a  Lyra  (f  1340),  §  541,  in  liis  Postille,  also  distinguishes  very 
definitely  two  classes,  after  Jerome,  and  says  of  the  books  of  the  second,  non 
sunt  de  canone  sed  per  consueiudinem  romance  ecclesice  leguntur,  or  even :  Hie  liber 
est  apocryphus  (e.  g.,  3  and  4  Esdras).  Yet  they  stand  in  the  editions  in  the 
usual  order  according  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Vulgate.  —  Some  other  me- 
diseval  quotations  from  Latin  writers  are  collected  by  Diestel,  I.  I.,  p.  180  f. 

In  the  orient  his  contemporary  Nicephorus  Callisti  {Hist,  eccl.,  II.  45  f.), 
designates  twenty-seven  books  in  the  N.  T.  as  canonical,  seven  of  them  for- 
merly eV  an<pi^6Kois,  but  now  everywhere  accepted.  (Therefore  also  the 
Apocalypse.)  Ne^fict  Kal  irapfyypairTa  are  various  Petrine  writings,  the  Acts  of 
Paul,  The  Shepherd,  Barnabas,  Apost.  Constitutions,  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews, 
etc.  But  the  tenacity  of  custom  is  shown  by  the  circumstance  that  even  in 
printed  copies  (e.  g.,  in  a  Bulgarian  N.  T.,  Moscow,  1G02  ;  see  Korner,  in 
Weller's  Altes  aus  alien  Th.  der  Gesch.,  II.  809)  the  Apocalypse  appears  sep- 
arated from  the  rest  of  the  N.  T.  and  placed  behind  a  stout  barricade  cf 
four  leaves. 

Of  the  same  age  perhaps  are  catalogues  preserved  in  Syrian  writers,  which 
present  no  further  variation  from  the  long  completed  canon  (LXX.).  A  pe- 
culiar note  is  found  in  Greg.  Barhebrfeus,  Nomocanon,  in  Mai,  Collect,  nova 
Scr.,  X.  53  ;  Judith  immediately  follows  Ruth  ;  after  the  three  books  of 
Maccabees  a  book  of  James  (read  Job),  Psalms,  etc.  In  the  N.  T.  the  Acts 
at  the  end,  after  the  Apost.  Constitutions.     In  notes  he  quotes  Athanasius 


TWELFTH  AND  THIRTEENTH  CENTURIES.  339 

against  the  Apocrypha  and  Esther,  Dionysius  Alex,  against  the  Aijocalypse, 
Origen  on  Hebrews. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  of  the  later  Middle 
Age  (even  in  the  German  and  Romance),  as  well  as  in  printed  Bibles  before 
the  time  of  Luther,  the  small  apocryphal  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  fre- 
quently appears,  sometimes  after  Galatians,  sometimes  after  Colossians  or 
Thessalonians.  Several  theologians,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  it,  repeat  the 
strange  expedient  of  Gregory  the  Great  (§  328),  or  give  a  similar  one  ;  see 
Fabricius,  Codex  apocr.,  I.  865.  In  pre-Lutheran  German  editions,  e.  g.^ 
Niirnb.  1483  and  others,  in  the  Bohemian  version,  in  the  Worms  Bible,  1529, 
in  Eck,  1530,  in  Dietenberger,  1534,  and  in  the  Commentary  of  Le  Fevre 
d'Etaples  (§  543)  it  stands  likewise  with  the  rest.  A  Dresden  codex  of  the 
Vulgate  places  Hernias  between  Psalms  and  Proverbs  (Anger,  in  the 
Deutsch.  morgenl.  Zeitschr.,  1851,  p.  105). 

330.  The  idea  of  the  canon  was  not  bvonglit  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  Church  again  until  the  religious  movement 
which  began  to  make  itself  felt  and  to  exert  its  influence  upon 
science  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.  It  again  be- 
came necessary  to  dispute  with  heretics  from  the  Scriptures, — 
and  witli  those  who  had  already  abandoned  the  church  doctrine 
on  this  very  point.  Here  and  there  the  people  began  to  get 
hold  of  the  Bible,  and  in  spite  of  all  hindrances  laid  in  the 
way,  it  could  not  be  but  that,  as  God's  word,  it  should  be 
more  sharply  separated  from  all  additions  and  restored  to  its 
proper  completeness  and  purity.  The  age  brought  certain 
books,  as  the  Apocalypse  with  the  fanatics.  Canticles  with  the 
mystics,  into  prominence,  and  caused  others  to  be  less  re- 
garded ;  but  the  attempt  of  Protestants  to  prove  that  their 
views  of  the  canon  were  already  current  among  the  Walden- 
sians,  and  at  a  time  when  the  latter  were  not  yet  in  existence 
at  all,  is  based  upon  error,  if  not  upon  fraud. 

The  Cathari  (Albigenses,  etc.),  in  southern  France  and  upper  Italy  (see 
especially  C.  Schmidt,  Hist,  des  Cathares,  1849,  2  vols.  ;  idem,  in  the 
Strassh.  tkeol.  Beitrdge,  I.  85  ff.  ;  and  the  Church  historians  in  general,  espe- 
cially Gieseler,  II.  2  ;  4th  ed.  552  if.,  [Neander,  Ch.  Hist.,  IV.  565  if.,  Tor- 
rey's  translation]  ),  had  literal  translations  of  the  N.  T.  at  least,  and  par- 
tially rejected  the  Old  :  — 

Acta  concil.  Lumbers.,  A.  d.  1165,  in  Mansi,  XXII.  159  :  Responderunt 
coram  omni  multitudine  quia  non  recipiebant  legem  Moysis  neque  prophetas 
neque  psalmos  nee  V.  T.  nisi  solummodo  evangelia  epp.  Pauli  et  VII.  canonicas 
epp.  actusque  app.  et  apocalypsin.  Petrus  Monachus,  in  Duchesne,  Scriptt.,  V. 
■556  :  Novum  Test,  benigno  deo  Veins  vero  maligna  attribuehant  et  illud  omnino 
repudiabant  pra'ter  quasdam  auctoritates  (quotations)  quce  de  Vet.  Testam. 
Novo  sunt  inserted  quas  ob  Novi  reverentiam  recipere  dignum  cestimabant.  — 
Reinerius,  Summa  de  Catharis,  in  Martene,  Thes.,  V.  p.  1769  :  item  quod  di- 
abolusfuit  auctor  totius  V.  2\  exceptis  his  libris :  (Job,  Psalms,  the  five  books 
of  Solomon,  and  sixteen  prophets)  quorum  quosdam  dicuni  esse  scriptos  in 
ccelo,  illos  scilicet  qui  fuerunt  scripti  ante  destructionem  Jerusalem  quam  dicunt 
fuisse  ccelestem ;  p.  1772  :  /.  de  Lugio  (c.  1230)  recipit  totam  bibliam  sed 
putat  eam  scriptam  in  altera  mundo.  Cf.  also  D'Argentre,  Colleciio  judic,  I. 
43  ff.  ;  Moneta,  Summa  adv.  Catk.,  Rome,  1743,  Bk.  I.  passim;  Disputatio 
inter  catholicum  et  Paterinum  hcereticum,  in  Martene,  V.  1703  ff.  These  wit- 
nesses are  contradictory,  probably  the  doctrinal  opinions  of  the  time  also. 


340  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

The  only  extant  Catharic  N.  T.  (§  4G5)  places  the  Apocalypse  immedi- 
ately after  the  Acts,  Paul  last,  and  aftei-  Colossians  the  ai)ociyphal  Epis- 
tle to  the  Laodiceans.  The  Cathaii  had  other  Apocrypha  besides  a  John 
(  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1734,  p.  703  ;  Thilo,  Codex,  p.  884),  which  Nazarius  brought 
from  Bulgaria  to  the  Cathari  of  Concorezzo  before  1200  A.  D.,  and  the  Visio 
Jesajca:  Moneta,  p.  218:  Dicunt  prophetas  bonos  fuisse,  aliquando  autem  omnes 
damnabant  prceter  Isajam,  cujus  dicunt  esse  quendam  lihellum  in  quo  habetur 
quod  Sp.  Isajce  raptus  in  corpore  usque  ad  VII.  caelum  ductus  est,  in  quo  vidit 
et  audiuit  qucedam  arcana  quibus  vehementissime  innituntur. 

Of  the  canon  of  the  Waldensiaus  we  liave  only  to  say  here  that  the  cur- 
rent opinion  that  they  knew  how  carefully  to  separate  the  Apoeryjdia  of  the 
O.  T.  from  the  canonical  books  is  based  upon  a  creed  said  to  have  been  com- 
posed in  1120,  but  certainly  edited  not  earlier  than  1532,  possibly  intention- 
ally dated  back  by  a  later  author,  and  is  in  point  of  fact  false.  The  spuri- 
ousness  of  the  document  and  its  later  origin  are  shown,  among  others,  by 
J.  J.  Herzog,  De  origine  Waldens.,  Hal.  1848,  p.  40,  and  in  the  Revue  de 
Tlieol.,  Str.  1850,  I.  334  ;  on  the  canon  (in  which,  after  the  Hebrew  manner, 
the  two  books  of  Samuel  are  separated  from  Kings,  and  precisely  the  same 
thing  is  meant  by  the  Apocrypha  as  among  Protestants  :  Li  libres  apocryphes 
li  qual  nan  son  pas  receopu  de  li  kebrios  mas  nos  li  legen,  enaima  dis  Hierome  al 
prologe  de  li  proverbi,  per  lenseignament  del  poble  non  pas  per  confermar  lau- 
thorila  de  las  doctrinas  ecclesiasticas)  see  E.  Reuss,  Revue  de  The'oL,  Str.  1850, 
II.  327.  The  language  of  this  document  is  not  that  of  the  twelfth  century 
but  that  of  the  sixteenth.  Of  the  four  copies  of  the  Waklensian  N.  T.  thus 
far  known  two  contain  also  Wisdom  and  Sirach.     Cf.  §  465. 

331.  The  fifteenth  century,  much  as  it  was  occupied  with 
church  affairs,  brought  no  innovation  in  this  particuhir  ques- 
tion. Its  efforts  were  directed  toward  more  practical  matters 
than  the  canon.  Only  a  few  theologians  directed  their  atten- 
tion to  this  subject,  or  more  correctly  speaking,  ventured  in- 
dependent judgments  on  particular  biblical  books  ;  but  this 
was  not  until  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation  had  already  broken 
its  fetters.  Where  that  did  not  strike  root  such  freedom  could 
neither  go  very  deep  nor  long  continue.  These  doubts,  whether 
from  critical  incompetence  or  from  policy,  were  ascribed  to 
Jerome,  beyond  whom  historical  investigation  did  not  venture 
to  penetrate.  Moreover  it  should  not  be  foi-gotten  that  that 
age  had  a  mighty  problem  in  the  solution  of  which  even  the 
keenest  criticism  of  the  canon  would  not  have  aided  it.  And 
even  tliis  was  an  advance,  that  by  means  of  the  first  printed 
editions  of  the  Bible,  especially  tlie  Latin  and  German,  the 
conception  of  the  canon  as  opposed  to  ordinary  literature  came 
again  more  clearly  into  the  consciousness  of  the  world  as  well 
as  of  the  school. 

Cf.  below,  §  468  ff. 

Conformably  to  the  Council  of  Florence,  Eugene  IV.  published  in  1441  a 
catalogue  of  the  canonical  books,  wliich  entirely  agrees  with  the  later  Tri- 
dentine  canon  (§  336;  Harduinus,  Acta  cone,  IX.  1023),  and  this  is  properly 
the  first  official  utterance  of  the  Roman  see  upon  this  matter. 

Alphons.  Tostatus  (f  1455),  Prtef.  qucest.  1  in  Scr. :  Alii  autem  sunt  libri  qui 
ad  S.  S.  pertinent  qui  in  canone  non  sunt,  sed  quartum  locum  obtinent  .  .  .  hos 


FIFTEENTH  CENTURY  —  THE   REFORMATION.  341 

apocr.  loco  censent.  Quanquam  korum  doctrina  ad  convincendum  .  .  .  minus 
idonea  sit,  ct  auctoritas  non  ita  ut  ceterorum  solida,  s.  tamen  Eccl.  etsi  priorihus 
minorem,  eis  tamen  auctoritatem  accomodat.  Dioiiys.  Carthus.  (f  1471),  Prol. 
in  Sir. :  Liber  iste  non  est  de  canone  quanquam  de  ejus  veritate  non  dubitetur.  — 
Thus  is  continually  kept  up  the  contradiction  of  separation  in  theory  and 
mingling  in  practice,  from  which  the  Church  could  at  last  escape  in  scarcely 
any  other  way  than  it  did  at  Trent. 

J.  L.  Vives  (f  1540),  Ad  Augustin.  de  civit.  del  xvi.  22:  Hieronymus,  Ori- 
genes,  Augustinus  et  alii  veterum  de  hoc  (ep.  ad  Hebrceos  auctore)  amhigunt ; 
ante  celatem  Hieronymi  a  Latinis  ea  epistola  recepta  non  erat  inter  sacras. 

Tho.  de  Vio  Cajetanus,  Cardinal  (f  1534),  Prooem.  ad  Ep.  ad  Hehr.  (fol. 
374,  ed.  Lyons,  1556)  :  De  auctore  huj'us  ep.  certum  est  communem  usum  eccle- 
sice  etdoctorum  nominare  Paulum,  Hieronymus  tamen  .  .  .  non  audet  aj/irmare, 
etc.,  etc.  Et  quoniam  Hieronymum  sortiti  sumus  regulam  ne  erremus  in  discre- 
tione  libb.  can.  {iiam  quos  ille  canonicos  tradidit  canonicos  habemus,  etc.)  ideo 
dubio  apud  Hier.  auctore  ep.  ezistente  dubia  quoque  redditur  ep.  quoniam  nisi  sit 
Pauli  non  perspicuum  est  esse  canonicam.  (Then  follow  internal  evidences 
against  Paul.)  Nos  tamen  loquentes  ut  plures  Paulum  autorem  nominabimus. 
Ibid.,  fol.  410,  Prooem.  in  ep.  Jacohi :  Non  est  usquequaque  certum  an  ep.  hcec  sit 
Jacobi  fratris  domini ;  dicente  Hieronymo,  etc.  (then  internal  evidences),  ex 
quihus  minus  certus  redditur  auctor.  —  Fol.  454  :  similar  statements  respecting 
2  and  3  John  :  propterea  ambo  minoris  auctoritatis  sunt.  The  same,  word  for 
word,  of  Jude,  fol.  455.  Only  2  Peter  is  defended  against  Jerome,  because 
he  finds  in  him  in  this  case  no  tradition,  but  only  a  subjective  judgment. 
Perhaps  also  because  there  was  no  possibility  of  supplanting  the  author 
named  except  by  decisive  rejection  of  the  work  from  the  first  class.  —  On 
the  Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T.  he  agrees  entirely  with  Jerome,  but  possunt  did 
canonici  i.  e.  regulares,  ad  cedijicatione  Jidelium. 

Erasmus,  Declar.  ad  censur.  fac.  tlieol.  paris.,  0pp.,  IX.  864  :  Juxta  sensum 
humanum  iiec  credo  ep.  ad  Hebr.  esse  Pauli  aut  Lucce,  nee  secundam  Petri  esse 
Petri,  nee  Apocalypsin  esse  Joannis  ap.,  .  .  .  yet  he  asks  whether  the  Church 
regards  not  merely  the  contents  of  these  books  as  canonical  an  etiam  receperit 
titulos.  Id  si  est  damno  duhitationem  meam  .  .  .  plus  apud  me  valet  expressum 
ecclesicB  judicium  quam  ullce  rationes  humance.  Idem,  Supput.  error.  Beddce, 
0pp.,  IX.  594  :  Scripsi  semper  fuisse  dubitatum,  non  scripsi  ab  omnibus  dubita- 
tum  .  .  ,  et  ipse,  ut  ingenue  fatear,  adJiuc  dubito,  non  de  auctor itate,  sed  de  auc- 
tore (ep.  ad  Hebr.),  etc.  Also  from  internal  evidence,  cf.  his  Annott.  in  N.  T., 
at  the  close  of  each  of  the  disputed  books,  also  of  the  Apocalyjise. 

This  desire  for  criticism,  shy  as  it  was,  was  soon  checked.  The  Sorbonne 
declared  (D'Argentre,  Collect.  Judic,  II.  52) :  Jam  non  est  fas  Christiano  de 
illis  dubitare.  Concil.  Senonense,  A.  D.  1528,  deer.  4  (Harduin.,  IX.  1939) : 
In  enumerandis  canonicce  scr.  libris  qui  prcescriptum  ecclesice  usum  non  sequitur, 
Carthaginiense  cone.  III.  Imioeentii  et  Gelasii  deereta,  et  denique  dejinitum  a 
ss.  patribus  librorum  catalogum  respuit  .  .  .  is  veluti  sehismatieus  et  hereseon 
omnium  inventor  .  .  .  reprimatur. 

332.  But  this  idea  was  suddenly  brought  by  the  Reforma- 
tion into  the  fores::i'onnd  of  theological  discussion.  In  break- 
ing  with  Rome  and  ecclesiastical  tradition  upon  the  doctrine 
which  was  recognized  as  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Gospel, 
the  Bible  was  also  declai-ed  to  be  independent  of  tradition,  and 
its  authority  based,  objectively,  upon  its  origin,  once  for  all 
established,  and  its  divine  inspiration ;  subjectively,  simply 
upon  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  soul  of  the  be- 
liever.    So  especially  Calvin  and  his  school ;  Luther  more  def- 


342  '  HISTORY   OF   THE   CANON. 

inltely  and  positively,  placing  at  the  foundation  the  doctrine 
of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  regarded  as  the  norm  and  rule. 
According:  to  this  the  Church  had  no  need  or  right  to  select 
the  books  or  to  collect  them.  A  view  which  at  the  first  was 
in  the  most  beautiful  harmony  with  the  whole  spirit  of  the  re- 
form movement ;  but  which  at  once  proved  itself  insufiicient 
when  theology,  with  its  cool  and  sober  intelligence,  took  that 
movement  under  its  discipline  and  protection. 

The  conception  of  the  Lutheran  reformers  of  Scripture  as  the  rule  of 
faitli,  though  from  the  first  moment  of  the  movement  everywhere  clearly 
declared,  was  not  expressly  formulated  in  the  confessions  until  late.  Form. 
Concord.  Epit.,  p.  570  :  Credimus  .  .  .  unicam  rtgulam  et  normam  secundum 
quam  omnia  dogmata  omnesque  doctores  cestlmari  et  judicarl  oporteat  nullam 
omnino  aliam  esse  quam  prophetica  et  apostolica  scripta  V.  et  N.  T.  .  .  .  Re- 
liqua  vera  sive  Patrum  sive  neoterlcorum  scripta,  quocunque  veniant  nomine  (ex- 
pressly also  ofticial  creeds),  sacris  Uteris  nequaquam  sunt  cequiparanda  sed 
universa  illis  ita  suhjicienda  sunt  ut  alia  ratione  non  recipiantur,  nisi  testium  loco 
qui  doceant  quod  etiam  post  apostolorum  tempora  .  .  .  doctrina  sincerior  con- 
servata  sit. 

The  same,  and  even  earlier,  among  the  Reformed,  with  decisive  rejection 
of  the  claims  of  the  Church  as  a  higher,  normative  authority,  Conf.  Helv.  /., 
ch.  1:  Scriptura  canonica,  verbum  Dei  Sp.  S.  traditum  et  per  prophetas  apos- 
tolosque  mundo  propositum,  omnium  perfectissima  et  ahsolutissima  philosophia, 
pietatem  omnem,  omnem  vitce  rationem  sola  perfecte  continet.  Conf.  Helv.  II., 
ch.  1:  Credimus  SS.  canonicas  ss.  prophetarum  et  App.  utriusque  Test,  ipsum 
verum  esse  verbum  Dei  et  auctoritatem  sujjicientem  ex  semet  ipsis  non  ex  hominihus 
habere.  .  .  .  Et  in  hac  Scr.  s.  habet  ecclesia  plenissime  exposita  qucecunque  per- 
tinent cum  ad  salvijicam  fidem  turn  ad  vitam  Deo  placentem  recte  informandam, 
etc.  Conf.  Gall.,  5  :  Credimus  verbum  his  libris  comprehensum  ab  uno  Deo  esse 
profectum,  quo  etiam  uno,  non  autem  hominibus,  nitatur  ipsius  auctoritas.  Cum- 
que  hcec  sit  omnis  veritatis  summa,  complectens  quidquid  ad  cultum  Dei  et  salutem 
nostram  requiritur,  neque  hominibus,  neque  ipsis  etiam  angelis  fas  esse  dicimus 
quidquam  ei  verba  adjicere  vel  detrahere  vel  in  eo  immutare.  Cf.  Conf.  Scot., 
art.  18,  19;  Conf.  Belg.,  art.  7;  Conf  tetrapol.,  art.  1;  Declar.  Thorun.,  II.  1, 
etc.  But  especially,  because  earlier  and  authoritative,  Calvin,  Instit.,  ch.  i. 
§  21  if.;  later  editions,  Bk.  I.,  ch.  vii.  ;  Zwingli,  0pp.,  ed.  Schuler,  I.  195  f. 
See  also  W.  Musculus,  Loci  Comm.,  Bas.  1560,  p.  228;  P.  Vermilius,  Loci 
Comm.,  CI.  III.,  Bk.  III.,  §  3:  Non  est  verum  quod  assumunt,  scripturam  habere 
autoritatem  ab  ecclesia;  eius  enim  frmitas  a  deo  pendet,  non  ab  hominibus,  et 
prius  est  verbum,  ac  quidem  firmum  ac  certum,  quam  ecclesia.  Nam  ecclesia  per 
verbum  vocata  fuit,  et  Sp.  dei  agit  in  cordibus  audientium  verbum  et  illud  legen- 
tium,  ut  agnoscerent  non  esse  humanum  sermonem  sed  prorsus  divinum.  A  Spiritu 
itaque  accessit  autoritas  verbo  Dei,  non  ab  ecclesia.  Cf.  Bk.  VI.,  §§  5,  8.  P. 
Viret,  De  vero  verbi  dei  ministerio,  Bk.  I.,  ch.  v. 

Yet  this  standpoint  was  still  foreign  to  some  circles  :  Conf  Bohem.,  art. 
1  :  Docent  scripturas  ss.  quae  in  bibliis  continentur,  et  a  patribus  receptee  auctor- 
itateque  canonica  donatce  sunt,  pro  veris  habendas,  etc.  Conf.  Angl.,  art.  6  : 
Sacrce  Scr.  nomine  eos  canonicos  V.  et  N.  T.  libros  intelligimus  de  quorum  auc- 
toritate  in  ecclesia  nunquam  dubitatum  est. 

More  extended  attempts  at  a  definition  of  canonicity  are  made  only  in 
some  Reformed  symbols  :  Conf.  Belg.,  4  :  Libri  canonici  sunt  quibus  nihil  op- 
poni  potest  (by  which  it  is  meant  to  express  their  absolute  authority,  not  the 
grounds  of  it)  ;  ibidem,  5  :  Hosce  libros  solos  pro  canonicis  recipimus  .  .  . 
non  tarn  quod  ecclesia  eos  pro  huiusmodi  recipiat  et  approbet,  quam  inprimis  quod 


CANON   OF   THE   REFORMERS —  OLD   TESTAMENT.        343 

Sp.  S.  in  cordibus  nostrls  testatur  a  Deo  profectos  esse  comprohationemque  in  se 
ipsis  habeant.  Conf.  Gall.,  4  :  Hosce  llbros  agnoscimus  esse  canonicos  .  .  . 
no7i  tantum  ex  communi  ecclesice  consensu  sed  etiam  multo  magis  ex  testimonio  et 
intrinseca  Sp.  S.  persuasione  j  quo  sugyerente  docemur  illos  ab  aliis  II.  ecclesi- 
asticls  discernere.  .  .  .  The  preference  is  here  everywhere  given  to  the  dog- 
matic grounds  of  decision  over  the  traditional  ;  true,  only  in  theory,  and 
that  with  reference  to  the  inner  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  in  a  way  insufficient, 
even  dangerous,  for  the  safety  and  stability  of  the  canon.  But  it  is  to  be 
remembered  tliat  here,  as  often  in  the  world,  theory  and  practice  did  not  al- 
ways go  together  (§§  333,  335). 

Yet  tliis  danger  was  avoided,  at  least  in  the  consciousness  of  theologians, 
by  the  principle  of  the  analog ia  Jidei,  i.  e.,  by  the  fact  that  the  Reformation 
was  based  much  less  upon  the  formal  principle  of  the  authority  of  Scripture 
than  upon  the  material  principle  of  justification  by  faith,  an  article  which  not 
only  in  general  constituted  the  rule  of  all  doctrine  and  criticism,  but  also  in 
particular  decided  questions  of  cauonicity  and  soon  those  of  interpretation 
as  well.  In  the  Reformed  theology  this  is  less  evident  because  Calvin  and 
his  followers  were  less  strict  in  the  application  of  it  to  the  particular  books, 
(§  335)  ;  Luther,  on  the  contrary,  carried  it  out  to  the  extreme  so  very  con- 
sistently that  he  in  reality  overtlu-ew  the  old  canon  :  Luther's  Vorrede  zum 
iV.  T. :  Summa,  St.  Johannis  Evangeli  und  sein  erste  Ep.,  St.  Paulus  Epis- 
tel,  sonderlich  die  zu  den  Rom.  Gal.  und  Eph.  und  St.  Peters  erste  Epistel,  das 
sind  die  Blicher  die  dir  Christum  zeigen  und  alles  leren  das  dir  zu  wissen  nott 
und  selig  ist  ob  du  schon  kein  ander  Buck  noch  lere  nymmer  sehest  noch  liorest. 
—  Vorrede  auf  Ep.  Jacobi:  Auch  ist  das  der  rechte  priiffestein  alle  Bucher  zu 
taddeln  wenn  man  sihet  ob  sie  Christum  treiben  oder  nil  .  .  .  was  Christum 
nicht  leret,  das  ist  nicht  apostoUsch,  wenns  gleich  Petrus  oder  Paulus  leret,  wieder- 
umb  was  Christum  predigt  das  ist  apostoUsch,  wenns  gleich  Judas  Annas  Pila- 
tus  oder  Herodes  thet. 

On  the  Protestant  view  of  the  relation  of  Scripture  to  faith  see  also  the 
writings  of  Sack,  etc.,  cited  in  §  290.  Especially,  however  :  H.  J.  Holtz- 
mann,  Kanon  und  Tradition,  ein  Beitrag  zur  neuern  Dogmengeschichte  und 
Symbolik,  Ludw.  1859.  For  this  and  the  following  sections  see  especially 
my  Hist,  du  Canon,  ch.  xvi.  f . 

333.  For  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  leaders  in  the 
great  work  of  the  Reformation  properly  entered  into  indepen- 
dent criticism  of  existing  opinions  only  in  those  doctrines  which 
were  closely  connected  with  the  fundamental  article  of  Protes- 
tantism, justification  by  faith.  In  other  matters  there  was  no 
thought  even  of  a  thorough  investigation  of  tradition.  In  the 
Old  Testament  the  Reformers  went  back  to  the  Hebrew  canon, 
principally,  doubtless,  because  Christ  and  the  Apostles  gave  no 
testimony  to  the  books  of  the  Greek  appendix,  although  the 
judgment  of  the  ancient  Fathers  may  have  been  of  some  weight 
also.  But  although  they  denied  to  the  so-called  apocryphal 
books  all  dogmatic  authority,  they  retained  them  as  useful  for 
edification,  and  all  Protestant  translations  of  the  Bible  con- 
tained them,  though  carefully  separated  from  the  other  wri- 
tings. 

Centur.  Magd.,  I.  451,  ed.  Semler  :  Etsi  numerus  II.  authenticorum  V,  T. 
ab  App.  nominatim  non  est  expressus,  tamen  haud  obscure  ex  citationihus  conj'ec- 
tari  potest  quod  eos  pro  certis  et  probatis  habuerint  de  quibus  antiquitas  judaica 


344  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

nunquam  duhltavit.  Then  follows  (also  I.  29)  a  catalogue,  in  wliich,  perhaps 
not  witlioiit  design,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Esther,  and  some  other  historical 
books  are  omitted. 

CEcolampadius,  Ej).  ad  Valdenses,  A.  d.  1530,  in  Scultet.,  Annul,  ev.,  II. 
313  :  .  .  .  Judith,  Tab.  Eccles.  Bar.  duos  ultimas  Esdrce  tres  Maccab.  duo  capp. 
ultima  Danielis  non  contemnimus,  sed  non  divinam  cum  ceteris  illis  auctoritatem 
damus. 

Conf.  Helv.  II.,  1  :  Interim  nihil  dissimulamus  quosdam  V.  T.  libros  a  veter- 
ibus  nuncupatos  esse  apocryphos,  ab  aliis  ecclesiasticos,  utpote  quos  in  eccl.  legi 
valuer unt  quidem,  non  tamenproferri  ad  auctoritatem Jidei  conjirmandam.  Conf. 
Gall.,  4  :  Libri  ecclesiastici.  .  .  qui  ut  sint  utiles,  non  sunt  tamen  ejusmodi  ut  ex 
iis  canstitui  possit  aliquis  Jidei  articulus.  Conf.  Angl.,  6  :  Alias  autern  libros,  ut 
ait  Hieronymus,  legit  quidem  ecclesia  ad  exempla  vitce  et  farmandos  mores,  illos 
tamen  ad  dogmata  confirmanda  non  adliibet  (then  follows  a  catalogue  of  the 
O.  T.  Apocrypha).  Conf.  Belg.,  6  :  Dijferentiam  constituimus  inter  II.  ss.  et 
apacryphos,  qui  sunt.  .  .  (catalogue),  quos  quidem  ecclesia  legere  et  ex  iis  docu- 
menta  de  rebus  cum  II.  canan.  consentientibus  desumere  potest.  At  nequaquam  ea 
ipsorum  vis  et  auctoritas  est,  ut  ex  ullo  ipsorum  testimonio  aliquod  dogma  de  jide 
certo  canstitui  possit.  Declar.  Thorun.,  II.  1  :  Libri  illi  qui  non  in  hebrceo  V. 
T.  canane  sed  tantum  in  grceco  textu  habentur  sunt  apocryphi  et  divino  canard 
acce7iseri  non  debent,  etsi  utiliter  ad  cedif.  eccl.  legi  possunt.  Conf.  Vald.  see 
§  330. 

In  the  editions  the  Apocrypha  have  a  place  by  themselves  from  the  first  : 
Dis  sind  die  Bucher  die  bey  den  alten  vnder  bibl.  Geschrift  nit  gezdhlt  sind,  auch 
bei  den  Ebreern  nit  gefunden  (Ziir.  1529  ff.),  to  which  is  added,  yedoch  be- 
werdt  nutzUch  und  in  hohem  Brauch  (Strassb.  1530)  ;  Apocrypha  das  sind 
Bucher  so  nicht  der  h.  S.  gleich  gehalten  vnd  dach  nutzlich  vnd  gut  zu  lesen  sind 
(Witt.  1534),  etc.  Among  the  French,  on  the  contrary,  longer  notices,  at 
first  in  the  apologetic  sjiirit,  even  defending  their  inspiration  :  Puis  donq  que 
taus  ant  une  mesme  source  et  saine  racine,  pour  une  resecation  qu'en  ont  faite  les 
Juifs,  ne  laisse  de  les  lire  et  en  prendre  doctrine  et  edification  (still  in  the  edi- 
tion of  Lyons,  1551).  On  the  contrary  in  the  Geneva  editions  expressly  : 
Ces  livres  qu'on  appelle  apocryphes  ont  este'  de  tout  temps  discernez  d'avec  ceux 
qu'on  tenoit  sans  dijficulte  estre  de  VEscriture  saincte.  .  .  on  les  doit  tenir  pour 
escritures  prive'es  et  non  pas  autentiques.  .  .  il  est  vray  quails  ne  sont  pas  a  me- 
priser.  .  .  toutesfois  c'est  bien  raison  que  ce  qui  nous  a  este  donne  par  le  S.  Es- 
prit ait  preeminence  surce  qui  est  des  hommes.  (Calvin,  6>/jp.,  IX.  823.)  And 
since  1588  :  Ce  ne  sont  pas  livres  divinement  inspires  comme  le  reste  des  s.  Es- 
critures, mais  qu^estans  de  particuliere  declaration  iis  ne  doivent  point  estre  receus 
ou  produits  publiquement  en  VEglise  comme  pour  servir  de  reigle  aux  articles  de 
nostrefoy.  Toutefais  on  pent  s'en  servir  en  particulier  pour  en  tirer  instruction, 
etc. 

The  progressive  development  of  Protestant  science  in  the  direction  of  a 
strict  orthodoxy  naturally  and  necessarily  widened  the  breach  between  these 
Apocrypha  and  the  Bible.  Voices  were  early  raised  against  their  acceptance, 
even  with  the  above  qualifications,  especially  in  the  Reformed  Church  ;  yet 
the  power  of  custom  still  conquered,  even  at  Dordrecht,  in  1G18.  ISee 
Schweizer,  in  Niedner's  Zeitschr.,  1854,  p.  645,  and  the  last  note  under 
§  340.  Their  retention  in  the  collection  was  certainly  an  inconsistency,  but 
their  exclusion  also  was  evidently  not  accomplished  upon  the  basis  of  the 
testimony  of  the  Spirit,  but  in  accordance  with  purely  historical  facts  and 
reasons. 

The  Apocrypha  are  not  the  same  in  all  editions,  especially  as  respects 
Esdras  and  Maccabees  ;  the  folio  editions,  particularly  in  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  (especially  the  Berleburger  Bibel)  are  the  richest. 

Controversy  upon  the  subject  with  the  Catholic  Church  :  Chemnitz,  £"0:- 
amen  cone,  trid.,  I.  66  £E.  (ed.  1707)  ;  J.  Rauiold,  Censura  II.  apocr.    V.  T., 


CANON  OF  THE  REFOEMERS  —  NE W  TESTAMENT.   345 

Oppenh.  1611  ;  A.  Huniiiiis,  Dica  pontificiis  scripta  oh  falsi  crimen  in  SS., 
Vit.  1622  ;  C.  Kortholt,  De  libris  apocr.  V.  T.,  Rost.  1664  ;  Tractatus  de 
canone  S.  S.,  Kil.  1669  ;  G.  Wernsclorf,  Quod.  I.  Sap.  et  Eccl.  pro  canonicis 
non  sint  hahendi,  Vit.  1728  ;  H.  Beuzel,  De  II.  V.  T.  apocryphis,  Lund.  1733  ; 
cf.  Baumgarten,  Polemik,  III.  65  if.  ;  Augusti,  Ueher  die  Verschiedenheit 
der  hirchUchen  Grundsdtze  in  Ahsicht  auf  Werth  und  Gehrauch  der  Apokryphen, 
Bresl.  1816. 

Catholic  defenses,  §  337. 

[On  the  relation  of  the  apocryphal  books  to  the  Canon,  and  their  right  to 
a  secondary  place  in  the  Bible,  see,  on  the  purist  side,  Keerl,  Die  Apokry- 
phen des  A.  T.,  1852,  a  prize  essay  ;  also  Die  Apokryphenfrage  aufs  Neue 
heleuchtet,  1855  ;  C.  E.  Stowe,  The  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  0.  T.,  and  the 
Reasons  for  their  Exclusion  from  the  Canon,  in  the  Bib.  Sac,  Apr.  1854  ; 
Home's  Introduction,  I.  On  the  other  side,  Stier,  Die  Apokryphen,  1853  ; 
Letztes  Wort  ilber  die  Apokryphen,  1855  ;  especially  Bleek,  Ueher  die  Stellung 
der  Apok.  des  A.  T.  im  christl.  Kanon,  in  the  Theol.  Studien  u.  Kritiken, 
1853,  pp.  267-354.] 

The  O.  T.  in  general  (vetus  contrarium  novo  non  est,  Conf.  Angl.,  7.  Cf. 
§  547)  has  no  subordinate  rank  in  the  Protestant  Church.  (Only  the  Sociu- 
ians  depart  essentially  from  this  principle  :  Utilis  lectio  V.  T.  non  necessaria, 
Socinus,  De  autor.  S.  S.,  ch.  1.)  For  it  is  retained  not  on  account  of  its  his- 
torico-ecclesiastical  and  ethical  contents,  but  on  account  of  its  theological, 
prophetic  connection  with  the  New  Testament,  and  from  this  point  of  view 
forms  an  integral  part  of  permanently  valid  revelation.  Yet  Luther  devel- 
ops the  thought  of  Jn.  i.  17  greatly  to  the  disparagement  of  Moses  (^Deutsche 
Werke,  Erlangen,  XLVII.  357). 

334.  With  respect  to  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
Reformers  could  exercise  still  greater  liberty  of  judgment, 
since  here  there  was  no  sacred  biblical  authority  to  settle  the 
question  outright.  But  while  Luther  himself,  in  bold  reliance 
upon  the  inner  power  of  the  Gospel,  ruled  the  letter  in  accord- 
ance with  it,  his  pupils  did  not  venture  to  follow  him  fully. 
The  investigation  of  the  canon  as  a  wholly  open  question  did 
not  lie  within  the  range  of  their  scientific  powers  or  of  their 
theological  interest  or  field  of  view ;  that  which  was  current 
passed  as  such  with  them  also,  and  it  is  really  to  be  wondered 
at  that,  as  a  whole,  they  went  back  of  decisive  tradition  to  that 
which  admitted  its  own  defectiveness,  that  is  to  say,  to  the 
Homologoumena  of  the  fourth  century.  In  this  way,  at  first 
giving  to  the  historical  facts  their  due  weight  without  reserve, 
soon  however  with  less  and  less  controversial  energy,  they 
came  again,  after  a  few  decades,  to  precisely  the  position  which 
their  master,  who  dissented  just  at  this  point,  had  once  aban- 
doned as  untenable. 

Luther  placed  the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews,  of  James  and  Jude,  and  the 
Revelation  at  the  end  of  the  N.  T.  (Preface  :  Bisher  haben  imr  die  rechten 
gewissen  Haupthilcher  des  N.  T.  gehaht,  diese  vier  nachf.  aber  haben  vor  Zeyt- 
ten  ein  ander  Ansehn  gehaht),  and  distinguished  them  in  the  index  of  his  edi- 
tions by  the  type  from  the  other  twenty-three,  which  alone  were  figured 
there.  He  urged  against  the  four  last  in  part  internal  critical  considerations 
and  the  weight  of  ancient  opposition,  but  in  part  also  dogmatic  prejudices. 


346  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

(Preface  to  Hebrews  :  Sy  hat  einen  harten  knoten  dass  sie  C.  vi.  und  x.  den 
sundern  die  buss  versagt  nach  der  Taufe  ;  James  :  Aujfs  erst  sy  stracks  wider 
St.  Paulon  und  cdle  ander  geschrifft  den  loerken  die  gerechtigkeit  gibt.  .  .  auffs 
ander  dass  sy  toill  Christenleut  lehren  und  nicht  einmal  des  leydens  (etc.) 
Christi  gedenkt.  Dieser  lacobus  thut  nicht  mchr  denn  treibet  zu  dem  Gesetz. 
.  .  .  Jude  :  Eine  unnothige  Ep.  unter  die  Haupibiicher  zu  rechnen  die  d.  Glau- 
bens  Grand  legen  sollen.  Revelation  :  Mein  Geist  kann  sich  in  das  Buch  nicht 
schicken  und  ist  mir  die  Ursach  genug  das  ich  sein  nicht  hoch  achte  dass  Chris- 
tus  drinnen  weder  geleret  noch  erkannt  wird.  .  .  .)  The  preface  to  the  Reve- 
lation is  much  modified  in  later  editions,  because  meanwhile  the  Lutheran 
party  had  found  in  the  book  a  useful  weapon  for  controversial  use.  Cf. 
Corrodi,  Beitrdge,  17,  37.  Luther's  opinions  are  collected  and  commented 
on  at  length,  but  one-sidedly,  in  Krause's  0pp.,  p.  199  ff.  (§  580).  Luther's 
prefaces  should  be  sought  for,  by  those  who  cannot  gain  access  to  a  genuine 
ancient  Bible,  in  Walch,  Vol.  XIV.,  ov  Deutsche  WW.,  Erlangen,  LXIII., 
not  in  the  superficial  special  editions  mutilated  by  pious  societies  (e.  g.  Stuttg. 
1841).  Luther  was  perfectly  conscious  of  the  subjective  character  of  his 
judgments  and  "  vAll  niemanden  loehren  davon  zu  halten  was  ihm  sein  Geist 
gibt."  Moreover  he  is  always  careful  to  lay  stress  upon  whatever  can  be 
said  in  commendation  (especially  in  respect  to  the  Ejjistie  to  the  Hebrews). 
Also  similar  objections  to  certain  things  in  the  O.  T.,  especially  in  the  Table 
Talks  {Deutsche  WW.,  Erlangen,  LXII.  128  fP.  ;  also  LXIII.  35  ff.).  That 
Luther  in  his  later  years  became  more  conservative  in  many  things  is  well 
known  ;  but  on  this  point  he  made  no  real  step  backward.  (M.  Schwalb, 
Luther,  ses  opinions  religieuses  pendant  la  premiere  ptriode  de  la  reformation, 
Str.  18GG.) 

Luther's  critical  views  have  since  been  abandoned  (see  especially  §  339  f.), 
but  all  the  editions  of  the  German  Bible  are  still  based  upon  them  and  the 
Halle  Orphanage  (§  406)  has  even  remodeled  the  Greek  canon  in  accord- 
ance with  them. 

With  sinailar  views  followed  Melanchthon  (in  various  passages  of  his  apol- 
ogetic works,  but  in  a  much  milder  and  more  caiitious  tone),  Brentz  {Apol. 
confess.  Wirtemb.,  p.  824,  seven  antilegomena),  the  Centuries  (I.  452,  seven 
antilegomena,  of  which  Hebi-ews,  James,  and  Jude  are  rejected)  ;  Flacins, 
Clav.  S.  S.,  II.  1.  p.  46  (has  seven  lihri  dubii  in  the  N.  T.)  ;  U.  Regius,  Int. 
locc.  comm.,  p.  42  (agrees  with  Luther). 

A.  Bodenstein,  of  Carlstadt,  De  canon,  scripturis,  Vit.  1520,  4°  (printed  in 
Credner,  Zur  Gesch.  des  Kanons,  pp.  291^12  ;  also  in  a  German  abridgment, 
Welche  Bucher  Biblisch  seint,  Witt.  1520),  follows  a  path  altogether  his  own. 
His  work  was  not  only  the  first  complete  exposition  of  the  Protestant  prin- 
ciple of  the  Scriptures  in  opposition  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  tradition,  but 
at  the  same  time  the  first  and  almost  the  only  attempt  to  determine  the 
canonicity  of  the  sacred  books  individually.  Building  upon  Augustine  and 
Jerome  and  a  comparison  of  the  two,  but  at  the  same  time  criticising  Luther 
severely  on  account  of  his  purely  subjective  judgment  (Si  fas  est  vel  parvum 
vel  magnum  facere  quod  placet,  futurum  erit  auctoritates  librorum  e  nostra  pen- 
dere  facultate,  p.  390,  Credner),  he  divides  the  sacred  writings  into  three 
orders :  (1)  libri  summce  dignitatis :  Pentateuch  (though  not  written  by 
Moses  himself),  and  Gospels  ;  (2)  libri  secundce  dignitatis  :  the  Prophets  so 
called  by  the  Jews  and  the  fifteen  acknowledged  epistles  ;  (3)  libri  tertice  et 
infimcB  auctoritatis  et  celebritatis :  the  Jewish  Hagiographa  and  seven  anti- 
legomena of  the  N.  T.  —  Also,  two  classes  among  the  O.  T.  Apocryplia  : 
Extra  canonem,  tamen  agiographi  :  Wisdom,  Sirach,  Tobit,  Judith,  Macca- 
bees ;  to  be  altogether  rejected  :  3  and  4  Esdras,  Barucli,  Manasseh,  Dan- 
iel. —  E.  Nied,  Essai  sur  la  vie  de  C,  Str.  1854. 

335.  In  the  schools  which  were  under  the  mfliience  of  Cal- 


CANON  OF  THE  KEFORMERS  — NEW  TESTAMENT.   347 

vin  the  testimony  of  ancient  history  likewise  had  weight  for 
a  time  and  to  a  certain  degree,  though  less  lasting  and  less  in- 
sisted upon.  At  the  same  time  the  conception  of  canonicity, 
especially  with  reference  to  the  apostolic  dignity  of  the  writers, 
was  considerably  broadened,  so  that  results  of  criticism,  even 
when  negative,  were  of  less  importance,  and  the  comparison  of 
the  contents  of  Scripture  with  the  princijjle  of  faith  was  car- 
ried through  with  a  more  discreet  exercise  of  acumen.  Yet 
the  confessions  of  the  English,  French,  and  Dutch  Protestants 
expressly  accepted,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  complete  canon 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  doubtless  in  order  to  avoid  the  ajipear- 
ance  of  desiring  arbitrarily  to  narrow  the  ground  upon  which 
the  structure  of  their  own  church  was  to  be  erected ;  while 
all  the  symbols  of  the  Lutherans,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Re- 
formed in  other  countries,  left  the  question  of  the  canonicity  of 
the  individual  writings  undecided. 

Even  earlier,  (Ecolampadius,  I.  c.  (§  333)  :  In  N.  T.  IV.  evv.  cum  Actis 
app.  et  XIV.  epp.  P.  et  VII.  cathol.  una  cum  apocaUjpsi  recipimus,  tametsi 
apocalypsin  cum  ep.  Jac.  et  Jud.  et  ultima  Petri  et  duahus  posterioribus  Joannis 
non  cum  cceteris  conferamus.  Similarly  Bucer,  Enarr.  in  evv.,  fol.  20.  Zwiugli, 
De  clar.  verhi  dei,  p.  310  :  Apocal.  liber  prorsus  non  sapit  os  el  ingenium 
Joannis.  Possum  ergo  testimonia  citata  si  velim  rejicere.  The  same  author 
declares  (  We7'ke,  II.  1,  p.  1C9)  :  Us  Apocalypsi  nemend  wir  kein  Kundschafft 
an,  denn  es  nit  ein  bibl.  Buck  ist. 

Calvin  (in  his  Commentary)  finds  no  fault  with  James  and  Jude  ;  of 
Hebrews  he  says  :  Ego  ut  Paulum  auctorsm  agnoscam  adduci  nequeo;  of  2  Peter  : 
Sunt  aliquot  probabiles  conjecturce  ex  quibus  colUgere  licet  alterius  esse  potius  quam 
Petri,  yet  guards  himself  here  and  there  against  any  inference  unfavorable 
to  the  Epistle  ;  he  passes  over  2  and  3  Jolm  and  the  Apocalypse  in  complete 
silence,  tliough  he  often  quotes  the  last  in  his  Dogmatics  as  a  canonical 
writing.  He  ascribes  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  to  a  pupil  of  the  Apostle, 
and  the  order  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  in  his  commentary  is  as  follows  : 
1  Peter,  1  John,  James,  2  Peter,  Jude.  He  makes  great  use  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  but  carefully  distinguishes  it  from  the  Pauline  Epistles 
(OjO/9.,  II.  374,  866,  960,  etc.).  Only  in  his  very  earliest  writings  does  he 
follow  tradition  (0pp.,  I.  57  ;  V.  180,  201). 

W.  Musculus  (Loci  comm.,  p.  221)  :  il/ete  modestim  non  est  ut  de  illis  pro- 
nunciem,  sintne  eorum  sub  quorum  nominibus  extant,  vel  secus.  Indicia  tamen 
veterum.  hoc  efficiunt  ut  minus  sim  illis  quam  cceteris  scripturis  astrictus,  licet  haud 
facile  qucBvis  damnanda  censeam  qua,  in  illis  leguntur. 

Conf.  Belg.  art.  4  has  a  complete  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  (containing  fourteen  epistles  of  Paul).  Conf.  Gall.  art.  3 
likewise,  but  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  separated  from  the  Pauline  Epistles 
and  without  the  name  of  the  author.  Conf.  Angl.  art.  6  gives  a  list  of  the 
O.  T.  alone,  and  says  N.  T.  libros  omnes  ut  vulgo  recepti  sunt  recipimus. 
All  this  simply  shows  that  they  did  not  find  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Protestant  faith  anywhere  endangered  or  encroached  upon  in  these  writings, 
as  Luther  thought. 

Conf.  Helv.  II.,  ch.  xi.  :  Damnamus  judaica  somnia  quod  ante  judicii  diem 
aureum  in  terris  sit  futurum  seculum  et  pii  regna  mundi  occupaturi  oppressis  suis 
hostibus  impiis.  How  the  canonicity  of  the  Apocalypse  consists  with  this  is 
not  explained,  although  it  is  elsewhere  quoted.  Exegesis  helped  over  the 
difficulties. 


348  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

In  the  Lutheran  symbols  the  Revelation  of  John  is  quoted  but  once,  not 
doctriually,  the  Epistle  of  James  sometimes  by  way  of  explanation,  that  to 
the  Hebrews  never  as  Pauline.  The  suigle  Confessio  Wirtembergica  says, 
p.  540  :  Sacram  scripturam  vocamus  eos  canonicos  libros  V.  et  N.  T.  de  quorum 
autoritate  in  eccl.  nunquam  dubitatum  est ;  but  even  this  excludes  the  Antile- 
gomena,  as  is  evident  from  the  authentic  declaration  of  Brentz  (§  334). 

336.  Perhaps  the  freer  procedure  of  the  Protestants  in  these 
investio-ations  might  have  led  Catholic  theologians  to  imitate 
them,  especially  since  they  were  really  the  first  to  set  the  ex- 
ample, and  were  apparently  not  so  much  hampered  by  the 
fundamental  principle  of  their  Church,  had  not  the  Council  of 
Trent  put  an  end  to  all  discussion  of  the  canon.  This  assem- 
bly, exactly  after  the  manner  of  the  Synod  of  Carthage,  made 
church  use  the  ground  of  decision  as  to  canonicity,  and  anath- 
ematized those  who  would  not  accept  as  sacred  all  the  books 
contained  in  the  common  Latin  version,  and  in  the  same  foim 
and  extent.  The  interest  which  they  had  in  securing  for  this 
version  equal  rank  with  the  original  text  may  have  been  an 
additional  motive  for  this  decree,  which  moreover  did  not  pass 
without  opposition. 

Concil.  Trident,  Session  IV.  (Apr.  8th,  1546)  :  SS.  synodus  .  .  .  omnes 
libros  tarn  V.  quam  N.  T.  .  .  .  nee  nan  traditiones  ipsas  turn  ad  Jidem  turn  ad 
mares  pertinentes  .  .  .  vel  a  Christo  vel  a  Sp.  S.  dictatas  et  continua  successione 
in  ecclesia  cath.  conservatas  pari  pietatis  affectu  ac  reverentia  suscipit  et  veneratur. 
Then  follows  the  catalogue  of  the  books  as  they  stand  in  the  ordinary  editions 
of  the  Vulgate  (Ezra  but  once,  Tobit  and  Judith  before  Esther,  Wisdom  and 
Sirach  after  Canticles,  Baruch  with  Jeremiah  ;  at  the  end  of  the  O.  T.  only 
two  books  of  Maccabees  ;  in  the  N.  T.  fourteen  epistles  of  Paul,  Hebrews 
last  ;  then  the  Catholic  Epistles,  among  which  Peter  has  the  first  place, 
James  the  third)  :  Si  quis  autem  libros  ipsos  integros  cum  omnibus  suis  partibus, 
prout  in  eccl.  cath.  legi  consueverunt  et  in  veteri  vulgata  latina  editione  habentur 
pro  sacris  et  canonicis  non  susceperit  .  .  .  anathema  sit. 

On  the  authority  here  accorded  to  the  Vulgate  in  comparison  with  the 
original  text,  see  §  481. 

Even  at  the  council  opinions  were  divided  in  the  deliberation  on  the  ques- 
tion ;  see  Sarpi,  Hist,  du  Concil.  de  Trente  (Basle  edition,  1738),  I.,  271  fP. 
Some  desired  a  separation  of  the  Homologoumena  and  Antilegomena  ; 
others  would  place  beside  them  a  third  class,  consisting  of  the  Apocrypha 
of  the  O.  T.  Still  others  wished  simply  a  catalogue  of  all  current  books 
without  dogmatic  declaration.  Sarpi  himself  blames  the  council  for  its 
decree.     Cf.  also  Pallavicini,  Istoria  del  Cone.  d.  Trento,  Bk.  VI.,  ch.  2. 

337.  Thus  the  decrees  of  Trent,  for  the  Romish  Church, 
with  respect  to  the  stability  of  the  canon,  put  fetters  upon 
science  which  it  was  never  after  able  to  throw  off,  scarcely 
to  loosen.  Moreovei-,  in  view  of  the  peculiar  method  of  estab- 
lishing religious  instruction  in  this  Church,  it  is  a  question 
whether  a  change  of  views,  if  it  had  taken  place,  would  ever 
have  been  able  to  extend  itself  outside  the  narrow  field  of 
learned  research  into  the  broader  one  of  theological  use.     This 


COUNCIL  OF  TRENT.  849 

state  of  things  has  continued  down  to  the  present  day.  The 
history  of  the  canon  for  this  Church  was  closed  at  this  time, 
unless  perhaps  one  may  wish  to  mention  some  isolated  and  as 
it  were  clandestine  attempts,  whose  object  was  to  restore, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  the  ancient 
class  of  deutero-canonical  writings.  Freer  views,  or  funda- 
mental doubts  respecting  other  parts  of  the  canon  are  from 
this  time  on  properly  heresies,  and  have  probably  only  occurred 
where  the  strict  conception  of  Catholicism  had  itself  suffered 
from  the  influence  of  the  spirit  of  the  age. 

Sixtus  Seuensis,  Biblioth.  sancta,  1566,  Bk.  I.,  p.  1,  distinguishes  the 
Scriptures  into  libri  canonici  primi  et  secundi  ordinis  •  the  latter,  ecclesiastici, 
deuterocanonici,  de  quibus  aliquando  fuit  inter  cathoUcos  sentenlla  anceps,  namely, 
Esther,  the  usual  O.  T.  Apocrypha,  Mk.  xvi.  9-20,  Lk.  xxii.  43,  44,  Jn.  viii. 
l-ll,  and  the  seven  Antilegomena  of  the  N.  T.  ;  aliique  ejusdem  generis  libri 
quos  jyrisci  patres  tanquam  apocryphos  habuerunt  .  .  .  delude  apud  omnes  Jideles 
reciiari  concesserunt  ad  populi  instructionem  .  .  .  demum  inter  SS.  irrefragabilis 
auctoritatis  assumi  voluerunt.  They  are  afterward  described  and  defended 
individually,  but  separately  fx-om  the  first  class.  In  a  third  uneanonical 
class  he  places  Manasseh,  passages  in  Esther,  3  and  4  Esdras,  3  and  4  Mac- 
cabees, Psalm  cli.  —  (Books  VII.  and  VIII.  of  the  work  enumerate  the 
errors  of  otliers  respecting  the  Scriptures.) 

The  same  is  repeated  by  Bellarinuie,  De  verbo  Dei,  Bk.  I.  ;  Antonius 
a  Matre  Dei,  Prceludla  ad  S.  S.  intell.,  1670,  p.  85  ;  the  Oratorian  B.  Lamy, 
Appar.  bibl.,  1696,  p.  334.  The  latter,  hcv/ever,  clearly  has  a  low  opinion  of 
the  libri  deuterocanonici ;  the  Tridentine  decree  did  not  make  the  separation 
quod  aliunde  notum  esse  poterat  viris  doctis. 

Jahn  also  {Einl.  ins  A.  T.,  1802,  I.  140  f.,  Introd.  in  II.  V.  F.,  p.  45)  finds 
discrbnen  librorum  nequaquam  esse  sublatum  by  the  decrees  of  councils. 

J.  B.  Glaire  (Introd.  aux  II.  de  VA.  et  du  N.  T.,  Paris,  1843,  I.  p.  79  fE.), 
repeats  the  division  of  Sixtus  Seuensis  entire,  with  all  its  dogmatic  conse- 
quences.    See  also  Scholz,  Einl.,  1845,  I.  263. 

According  to  L.  E.  Du  Pin  (Dissert,  pre'iim.,  1701,  I.  1,  §  6),  no  doubt  can 
be  longer  maintained  after  the  action  at  Trent,  yet  he  himself  emphasizes 
very  strongly  the  conceivable  doubts,  and  has  no  better  answer  to  give  to 
them  than  this  :  Quoiqu'  il  ne  se  fasse  plus  de  nouvelles  re'velations  a  VjSglise, 
elle  pent  apres  bien  du  temps  etre  plus  assure'e  de  la  vt'rite  d'un  ouvrage  qu'elle 
ne  Ve'tait  auparavant.  —  From  that  time  on  both  the  Protestant  Church 
(§  340)  and  the  Catholic  held  pretty  closely  to  the  conclusion  deuterocanonicos 
fuisse  donee  ecclesice  judicio  dubla  sublata  sint.  Cf.  also  M.  Gerbert,  Princ. 
theol.  exeg.,  p.  101. 

It  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  neither  to  the  patristic  scholarship  of  the 
Benedictines  nor  to  the  critical  acumen  of  R.  Simon  is  th  j  history  of  the  canon 
a  scientific  or  an  attractive  problem.  This  is  only  intelligible  when  it  is  re- 
membered that  the  historic  facts,  which  ought  to  have  been  tested  by  evi- 
dence and  records,  had  already  become  an  article  of  faith  and  been  placed 
under  the  sanction  of  anathemas.  Only  very  indirectly,  by  the  investigation 
of  the  text,  and  especially  by  his  methods,  tolerably  independent  of  theo- 
logical theories,  the  latter  prepared  the  way  for  later  investigations  of  the 
history  of  the  canon. 

But  that  the  fathers  at  Trent  did  not  intend  to  countenance  either  the  one 
or  the  other  of  those  views  which  endangered  the  complete  equality  of  all  the 
books  has  been  conclusively  shown  by  B.  Welte,  Ueber  das  hirchliche  Anselin 
der  deuterokanonischen  Bucher,  in  the  Tub.  Quartalschr.,  1839,  II.  224  S.   Cf . 


350  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

(Jos.  Barre),  Vindicke  II.  deuterocanon.  V.  T.,  Paris,  1730  ;  A.  Vincenzi, 
Sessio  IV.  concil.  trident,  vindicata,  Rome,  1842,  3  vols.  ;  cf.  also  Bellarmiu, 
De  verbo  Dei,  Bk.  I. 

Ventures  like  the  giving  up  of  the  Pauline  authorsliip  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (Feilmoser,  EinL,  p.  241  ;  2d  eel.  p.  359  ;  Lutterbeuk,  Neutest. 
Lehrb.,  II.  245,  the  latter  of  whom  introduces  the  contents  of  the  book 
without  further  remark  as  the  teaching  of  Apollos)  are  among  the  greatest 
rarities  in  the  Catholic  Church.  The  last  mentioned  author,  in  particular, 
purposely  enters  upon  this  field  from  the  point  of  view  of  Protestant  inves- 
tigation ;  but  in  general  the  studies  of  Catholic  critics,  however  solid  and 
independent  they  may  be  (§§  21,  595),  never  attack  the  permanence  of  the 
canon.  The  so-called  Old  Catholic  movement,  however,  appears  to  be  at- 
tempting a  revolution  on  this  point  (Sepp,  Kirchl.  Reformentwiirfe  beffin- 
nend  niit  der  Revision  des  Bibelkanons,  Munich,  1870,  in  which  even  Jonah 
and  Esther  are  questioned). 

338.  On  the  other  hand  the  Tridentine  decrees  have  pre- 
vailed even  in  the  Orient.  The  Greek  Church,  though  for 
centuries  it  had  been  languishing  in  deep  spiritual  poverty, 
still  possessed,  without  knowing  the  value  of  the  possession, 
the  ancient  canon,  without  the  Apocrypha  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  was  not  until  more  enlightened  priests,  who  had 
fallen  under  suspicion  of  heretical  leanings  toward  Protestant- 
ism because  of  other  teachings,  had  expressly  emphasized  this 
distinction  that  the  defenders  of  the  stricter  faith  found  it  con- 
venient, in  confessions  of  faith  and  decrees  of  synods,  to  place 
these  books  on  a  level  wdtli  the  rest,  as  if  the  danger  could 
thus  be  more  completed  avoided.  One  after  another,  all  the 
churches  of  the  Greek  ritual  accepted  these  decrees.  The 
people  knew  no  more  of  the  Bible  in  consequence ;  afterward, 
as  before,  it  was  an  unknown  book  to  them. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  Metrophanes  Kritopulos,  after- 
ward Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (1625),  and  Kyrillos  Lukaris  (1G29  ;  died  as 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  1G38)  published  confessions  of  faith  in  wliich 
the  ancient  Laodicean  canon  was  retamed  (though  with  the  addition  of  the 
Aj^ocalypse).  See  Conf.  Cyrilli,  ed.  Kimniel,  I.  40,  Qu.  1.  Metrojihanes, 
II.  104,  makes  out,  by  peculiar  reckoning,  thirty-three  sacred  books,  corre- 
sponding to  the  number  of  the  years  of  Christ,  and  adds,  after  Gregory, 
John  of  Damascus,  and  other  fathers,  the  other  books  which  some  receive 
beside  ;  a-rro^KriTovs  fJ-ev  oiix  ^}yov/J.f^a  .  .  .  ais  KavoviKas  Se  Kol  avdevriKas  ovSiTTor' 
aireSe'laro  rj  rod  X.picTTOv  4KK\r]ffia. 

After  Lukaris  had  been  condemned  at  Jassy,  in  1G42,  under  the  Patriarch 
Parthenios,  a  confession  was  drawn  up  by  a  synod  convened  at  Jerusalem 
under  Dositheos,  in  1672,  in  which  Qu.  3  (Kimmel,  I.  465)  adds  to  the  an- 
cient canon  :  koI  -n-phs  tovtois  awep  affweroos  Kol  a^oSois  etr'  oZv  f6(\oKaKoipya>s 
a,Tr6Kpvcpa  KaTcovS/xaaeu  (6  KvpiWos)  .  .  .  Kal  ravra  yviiaia  ttjs  ypatpris  p-^pv  Kpiuofieu 
i.  e.  Wisdom,  Judith,  Tobit,  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  Susanna,  Maccabees,  Si- 
rach. 

The  official  Moscow  edition  of  the  eda.  ypacpi]  (1821,  4°)  has  all  the  Apoc- 
rypha, Ezra  in  two  recensions,  together  with  Nehemiah  and  four  books  of 
Maccabees  at  the  close  of  the  historical  books,  the  Minor  and  Major  Prophets 
befoi-e  the  seven  poetical  books,  or  books  of  wisdom. 

With  respect  to  the  Antilegomena  of  the  N.  T.  there  was  no  further  dis- 


TRANSITION.  351 

cussion  after  their  use  in  Church  for  a  thousand  years.  Leo  AUatius  (f  1669), 
De  II.  eccl.  gr.,  p.  36  (in  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Gr.,  V.)  :  Alio  tempore  de  scripturis 
hisce  disceptatum  est,  in  eamque  itum  sententiam  a  plerisque,  non  esse  eoruni  auc- 
torum  quos  prceferunt  .  .  .  attamen  hisce  temporibus,  tanta  est  vis  veritatis,  fixum 
in  grcecorum  animis  mansit  .  .  .  epp.  catholicas  et  Apocaltjpsin  ipsam  veram  et 
genuinam  esse  Scr.  et  uti  talem  publice  in  officiis  per  totam  Grceciam  quemad- 
modum  et  alias  div.  Scr.  legunt. 

339.  But  in  the  Protestant  Church  also  various  circum- 
stances soon  interfered  with  the  development  and  progress  of 
a  criticism  more  instinctive  than  scientific.  True,  the  criterion 
of  canonicity  established  by  the  Reformers  was  not  abandoned 
theoretically,  but,  no  longer  flowing  from  the  fountains  of  a 
fresh  and  living  experience,  and  not  being  in  accord  with  the 
everywhere  prevalent  dialectics,  it  was  more  and  more  sup- 
ported by  external  evidence,  and  soon  crowded  entirely  into 
the  background.  This  external  evidence,  in  the  general  weak- 
ness of  historical  study,  naturally  found  its  limit  in  the  so- 
called  testimonies  of  the  ancient  church;  that  is  to  say,  in 
plain  German  [English]  custom  proved  itself  the  stronger  and 
won  the  day,  as  formerly  at  Hippo.  The  change  came  about 
more  quickly  in  the  Calvinistic  theology,  in  the  Lutheran  more 
gradually,  and  by  stages ;  the  final  result  was  the  same  in. 
both. 

Note  the  increasing  f  ulhiess  of  the  theoretical  discussions  of  the  Scriptures 
and  the  rajjidly  advancing  fixation  of  doctrinal  statements  respecting  them 
(chiefly  to  be  sure,  with  controversial  aim)  in  most  treatises  on  dogmatics 
(after  the  style  of  M.  Chemnitz,  Examen  concil.  tridentlni,  hoc.  /.),  as  well 
as  in  special  works  :  Zanchi,  De  S.  S.  (0pp.,  Gen.  1619,  VIII.);  J.  Cameron, 
Prcelectt.  de  verbo  Dei  {0pp.,  Gen.  1642)  ;  several  essays  by  M.  Amyraut,  J. 
de  la  Place,  and  L.  Cappelle,  in  the  Thes.  Salmur.,  I.,  etc.  Cf.  m  general 
my  Hist,  du  Canon,  ch.  xvii. 

We  are  chiefly  interested  in  this  connection  by  the  distinction,  which  was 
becoming  a  stereotyped  one,  between ^c?es  divina  and  Jides  humana  as  applied 
to  the  Scriptures,  the  former  being  produced  directly  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
latter  being  called  forth  by  scientific  evidence,  internal  and  external  ;  the 
former  of  course  the  more  important,  certain,  and  decisive  ;  but  in  reality 
emphasized  more  for  the  sake  of  its  dogmatic  consequences  than  because  of 
the  natural  pressure  of  direct  faith,  and  hence  mingled  in  many  ways  with 
dialectic  subtleties  (especially  among  the  Reformed.  Cf.  C.  E.  Saigey,  Le 
Pajonisme,  in  the  Revue,  XIV.)  ;  the  latter  treated  by  preference  and  with 
increasing  fullness,  until  finally  in  Holland  the  Cartesian  philosophy  wholly 
crowded  out  the  other  element.  Thus  the  former  method  came  to  be  ap- 
plied for  the  most  part  only  to  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  while  the  canonicity  of 
particular  books  (often,  moreover,  confounded  with  their  authenticity)  was 
established  in  the  second  way  alone. 

Hand  in  hand  with  this  change  in  theological  methods  went  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  conceptions  of  Scripture  and  the  Word  of  God,  which  was  a 
complete  departure  from  Luther.  Originally  distinct  (ApoL,  267;  Smalc, 
331,  333  ;  F.  C,  670,  818),  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  while  on  the  one  hand 
everything  in  the  Bible  doubtless  pertained  to  edification,  but  not  everytliing 
to  salvation,  on  the  other  genuine  gospel  preaching  was  also  the  word  of 
God,  the  two  gradually  became  synonymous  (among  the  Reformed  even  iu 


352  HISTORY   OF  THE  CANON. 

the  Conf.  Helv.  II.,  art.  1)  ;  and  the  mere  existence  of  the  printed  copies 
came  to  be  regarded  as  proof  of  canonicity  (Du  Moulin,  Bouclier  de  la  fed, 
p.  38,  ed.  1846  :  II  suffit  de  prendre  la  bible  en  langues  originaires  et  courir  les 
litres  des  livres). 

Here  belongs  also  the  fact  of  the  intensification  of  the  conception  of  in- 
spiration, which  became  more  and  more  a  mechanical  one  ;  the  classicism  of 
the  Greek  style  (§  47),  the  absolute  mtegrity  of  the  text  {puritan  fontium, 
§  406),  the  antiquity  of  the  square  character,  and  finally  even  the  inspiration 
of  the  accents  in  the  N.  T.,  and  in  the  O.  T.  that  of  the  punctuation  marks 
(Voetius,  Pruhl.  de  S.  S.,  in  his  Dispp.  sel.,  Utr.  1669,  Pt.  V.  p.  4)  and  vowel 
points,  being  made  articles  of  faith  :  Formula  consensus  helv.,  1675,  Ch.  i.  : 
Deus  verbum  suum  non  tantum  scripto  manda^-i  curavit  sed  etiam  pro  scripto 
paterne  vigilavit  ...  so  that  ne  apex  quidem  vel  iota  unicum  ever  was  or  will 
be  lost.  Ch.  ii.  :  In  specie  hebraicus  V.  T.  codex.  .  .  turn  quoad  consonas 
turn  quoad  vocalia  sive  puncta.  .  .  di6nvivcnos-  Ch.  iii.  :  eorum  sententiam  pro- 
hare  neutiquam  possumus  qui  lectionem  ex  verss.  .  .  ex  sola  ralione.  .  .  .  ex 
collat'is  inter  se  edd.  .  .  emendare  religioni  non  ducunt  atque  ita  Jidei  nostm 
principium.  .  ,  in  discrimen  adducunt. 

Among  the  Reformed  historical  criticism  is  only  practiced  sporadically  and 
is  of  no  particular  interest.  Beza  (§  404)  dwells  only  upon  Hebrews  and 
the  Apocalypse,  whose  inspiration  and  canonicity  he  maintains  ;  the  latter 
possibly,  judging  from  the  style,  written  by  Mark  ;  as  to  the  former,  sunt 
probabiles  coniecturce  ex  quibus  nee  Pauli  esse  nee  hebraice  unquam  fuisse  scrip- 
tarn  apparet ;  but  this  note  is  wanting  in  the  later  editions. 

The  course  of  things  in  the  Lutheran  Church  is  more  interesting.  Some 
few  simply  stand  by  Luther's  views,  especially  on  points  which  have  nothing 
to  do  with  scientific  proof.  So  D.  Wolder  in  his  Polyglot,  Hamb.  1596,  in 
which,  even  in  the  N.  T.,  libri  canonici  and  non  canonici  are  distinguished 
(the  latter  the  Apocalypse,  without  name,  Hebrews,  incerti  autoris,  James 
and  Jude,  certorum  autorum).  —  The  Strassburger  Kirchenagende  of  1596,  p. 
6  :  Dieiceil  aber  beydes  von  alters  hero  und  auch  heutigestages  nit  geringer  streit 
ist  welches  die  toahre  echte  und  unzioeivelige  Biicher  seien.  .  .  so  erkldren  wir 
WIS  dahin  dass  wir  desshalb  gdnzlich  der  Meynung  seien  wie  Dr.  M.  Luther  leh- 
ret.  .  .  im  N.  T.  aber  die  Ep.  an  die  Ebrder  ivie  auch  Jacobi  und  Judd  und 
die  Off.  Joh.  nit  so  gewiss  fiir  Schriften  d.  App.  konnen  gehalten  loerden  oh  es 
sonst  wohl  gute  und  niitzliche  Biicher  seynd  welche  loohl  mbgen  in  der  Kirche  ge- 
lesen  werden,  aber  allein  zur  Aufbawung  der  Gemeinde,  und  nit  streitige  Artikid 
damit  zu  bekrefftigen. — The  edition  of  1670  omitted  this  passage.  J.  M. 
hoventz,  De  Jictitia  agendoruin  eccl.  argent,  circa  II.  can.  N.  T.  dissensione,  Arg. 
1751. 

The  more  learned  theologians,  however,  went  back  to  the  ancient  distinc- 
tion of  (seven)  Antilegomena.  Chemnitz,  Exam.  cone,  trid.,  Loc.  I.,  Sect.  6, 
§  9  ff . :  QucBStio  est  an  ea  scripta,  de  quibus  in  antiquissima  ecclesia  duhitatumfuit, 
ideo  quod  testificationes  primitivce  ecclesice  de  his  non  consentirent,  prcesens  eccle- 
sia possit  facere  canonica  f  Pontificii  hanc  auctoritatem  usurpant,  sed  manifestis- 
simum  est  ecclesiam  earn  non  habere ;  eadem  enim  ratione  posset  etiam  vel 
canonicos  II.  reiicere  vel  adulterinos  canonisare.  —  Moreover  the  task  of  addu- 
cing the  testimonium  ecclesice  primitive  was  rendered  very  easy  by  the  help 
of  Jn.  xxi.  24  f.  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  17  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  15. 

The  Antilegomena  meant  precisely  N.  T.  Apocrypha,  and  were  regarded 
as  invalid  for  the  establishment  of  dogma  :  J.  Schroeder,  Aphorismi  e  comp. 
theoL,  1599,  Disp.  I.,  thes.  16;  M.  Hafenreffer,  Loci  theoL,  1603  :  Hi  apocryphi 
II.  quanquam  in  diiudicatione  dogmatum  autoritatem  non  habent,  quia  tamen  quce 
ad  cedificationem  et  histitutionem  faciunt  plurima  continent,  cum  utilitate  etfructu 
privatim  legi  et  publice  recitari  possunt.  N.  Selneccer,  Exam,  ordin.,  1584  ; 
L,  Osiander,  Instit.  th.  chr.,  1582,  p.  37.  The  Wittenberg  faculty,  in  their 
criticism  of  the  Rakovian  catechism  (1619),  charge  the  Socinians  with  having 
confused  tliis  distinction. 


SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY— SKEPTICAL  REACTION.   353 

The  next  step  in  the  adjustment  was  to  place  the  Apocrypha  of  the  N.  T. 
far  above  those  of  the  old.  Hafenrelfer,  I.  c. :  Si  apocryphos  II.  inter  se  con- 
ferimus  illi  qui  in  novo  quam  qui  in  vetere  test,  comprehenduntur  maiorem  ha- 
bent  autoritatem.  C.  Dietrich,  Instit.  catech.,  1613,  p.  19  :  Duhitatum  fuit  de 
autore  non  de  doctrina  ;  erratit  autem  pontijicii  qui  absolute  parem  autoritatem 
cum  canonicis  habere  dictilant.  B.  Menzer,  De  S.  S.,  Disp.  I.,  th.  25  :  Libri 
Apocryphi  primi  ordinis  s.  ecclesiastici  N.  T.  in  nostris  ecclesiis  fere  eandem  ob- 
tinent  cum  canonicis  autoritatem.  —  See  further  §  340. 

340.  The  seventeenth  century  therefore  took  a  step  back- 
ward, to  a  certain  extent  necessarily.  The  distinction  of  Aen- 
terocanonical  books  in  the  New  Testament  disappeared  ahnost 
altogether.  Doubt  concerning  them  became  the  more  suspicious 
because  of  its  liaving  found  refuge  among  the  decried  sect  of  the 
Arminians ;  and  it  finally  became  a  natural  duty  to  one's  self  to 
set  himself  to  prove  that  no  such  doubt  had  ever  really  existed 
in  the  bosom  of  the  evangelical  church.  Only  with  respect 
to  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament  did  the  Protestants 
never  deny  the  principles  of  the  Reformers ;  or,  more  prop- 
erly, since  these  now  formed  the  only  subject  of  dispute  be- 
tween them  and  the  Catliolics  in  this  special  field,  and  conse- 
quently were  most  exposed  to  the  fire  of  controversy,  their 
boundless  confusion  of  thought  appeared  most  ghningly  in  the 
character  of  their  judgments.  With  respect  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament, only  the  twelve,  together  with  Paul,  could  properly 
enjoy  the  prerogative  of  a  special  lordship  over  doctrine  in  the 
Church.  Within  their  number,  therefore,  must  the  authors  of 
all  the  books  be  sought,  and  the  two  apostolic  men  who  had 
written  Gospels  were  degraded  to  the  rank  of  amanuenses  of 
their  teachers,  and  all  to  that  of  unconscious,  unthinking  tools 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

With  respect  to  the  Antilegomena,  the  simpler  designation  of  libri  canonici 
primi  et  secundi  ordinis,  proto-  and  deutero-canonici,  was  chiefly  in  favor  ; 
Gerhard,  I.  c,  I.  6  ;  II.  186,  and  many  after  him  ;  and  this  distinction 
referred  directly  to  purely  external  and  accidental  considerations  :  Calovius, 
Syst.  locc.  iheol.,  1655, 1.  513  :  Nonnulli  ex  orthodoxis  ep.  ad  Hebroios,  etc.,  deu- 
terocanonicos  II.  vacant,  quod  in  ecclesia  vis  aliquando  contradictum  fuerit ;  qui 
iamen  agnoscunt  eosdem  pro  OeoTrveva-rois  habendos  esse,  etc.  Quenstedt,  Theol. 
did.  pol.,  Ch.  iv.  p.  235  :  Disceptatum  fuit  de  his  II.  non  ab  omnibus  sed  a  pau- 
cis,  non  semper  sed  aliquando,  non  de  divina  eorum  autoritate  sed  de  autoribus  se- 
cundariis.    Sunt  cequalis  autoritatis,  non  autem  cequalis  cognitionis  apud  homines. 

Finally  it  is  questioned  whether  it  is  worth  while  or  permissible  to  dwell 
upon  these  matters  :  A.  Pfeiffer  (f  1698),  Critica  s.,  p.  385  :  Nonnulli  ex  or- 
thodoxis Ep.  ad  Hebr.,  2  Petri,  2, 3  Joh.,  Jac,  Jud.,  Apoc.  deuterocanicos  N.  T. 
imo  apocryphos  vocarunt,  non  tamen  eo  animo  ut  illis  canonicam  in  confirmandis 
fidei  dogmatibus  derogarent  auctoritatem,  sed  ut  aliqua  ratione  distinguerentur  ab 
iis  de  quorum  autore  secundario  et  autoritate  nunquam  esset  dubitatum,  wide 
tamen  ab  aliis  commodius  canonici  secundi  ordinis,  sc.  non  habito  respectu  ad  cer- 
titudinem  auctoritatis,  appellantur,  quanquam  nuncfortasse  consultius  sit  ab  omni 
distinctione  abstinere.  So  also,  and  very  naively,  J.  A.  Dietelmair,  Theol. 
Beitr.  (1769),  I.  377  :  Heutiges  Tages  konnten  wir  diesen  Unterschied  zur  Noth 
23 


854  HISTORY  OF   THE   CANON. 

enibehren.  Weil  er  dber  dock  noch  einigen  Gebrauch  hat  una  besorglicher  Mas- 
sen  bald  nock  einen  mehrern  bekommen  mochte  (!)  so  istjieissig  zu  erinnern  dass 
die  Zusutze  proto-,  deutero-  nicht  einen  verscJiiedenen,  Wei'th  arizeigen  sollen, 
sondern  eine  fruhere  oder  spalere  Aufnahme.  Cf.  also  Buddeus,  Institt.  dogm., 
p.  146  ;  Pritiiis,  Inlrod.  in  N.  T.,  1737,  p.  37  ;  Rumpaius,  Comm.  crit.  ad  11. 
N.  T.,  1757,  p.  188  ;  C.  F.  Sclimid,  Hist.  ant.  canonis,  1775,  p.  50  :  Impune 
et  sine  ulla  impletatis  nota  licuit  priscis  ambigere  vel  etiam  dubitare  de  II.  N.  T. 
(not  of  the  Old)  quorum  divina  origo  istis  temporibus  non  dum  satis  nota  esset 
.  .  .  quod  nunc  post  perspecta  clarissima  argamenta  divince  eorum  originis,  tra- 
ditionem  perpetuam  eccl.  constitutumque  publicum  eorum  usum  indulgeri  nequit. 

The  Reformed  theologians  either  pass  over  the  doubts  respecting  the  N. 
T.  Antilegomena  in  complete  silence  or  touch  upon  them  merely  superficially, 
as  a  historical  curiosity  of  no  interest.  Placteus,  Comp.  theol.,  0pp.,  I.  p. 
GOG  :  Dubltatum  est  quidem  aliquando  sed  nulla  justa  causa  fuit  dubitandi. 
Cf.  Hottinger,  Qucest.  th.  centur.,  1G59,  p.  178  ;  Camero,  Prcelectt.,  I.  c,  p. 
476  ;  W.  Whitaker,  Dispp.  de  S.  S.,  1590,  Coutrov.  I.,  qu.  I.,  ch.  xvi.  :  Si 
Lutherus  aut  qui  eum  secuti  sunt  aliter  senserint  out  scripserint  de  quibusdam 
libris  N.  T.,  -ii  pro  se  respondeant.  Nihil  ista  res  ad  nos  pertinet  qui  hac  in  re 
Lutherum  nee  sequimur  nee  defendimus. 

For  the  freer  judgments  of  the  Arminians  respecting  particular  books  see 
especially  H.  Grotius,  in  the  Annott.  (§  562),  and  the  New  Testament  of  J. 
J.  Wetstein  (§  409).  Here  belong  also  (J.  Le  Clerc),  Sentimens  de  quelques 
theol.  de  Hollande,  etc.,  Amst.  1685,  a  controversial  writing  against  R.  Simou 
very  noted  in  its  time  ;  and  (at  least  locally  related)  the  critical  results  for 
the  history  of  the  canon  in  J.  Basnage,  Hist,  de  VSglise,  1699,  over  which  a 
controversy  arose.     See  Unschuldige  Nachr.,  1704,  p.  665. 

With  respect  to  the  so-called  Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T.  the  theologians  de- 
vised all  sorts  of  plirases  to  give  scientific  expression  to  the  peculiar  hesita- 
tion of  the  period  of  the  Reformation.  Hollaz  :  In  codice  sunt,  non  in  canone; 
Gerhard:  Absconditi,  i.  e.  originis  occultce,  non  abscondendi,  i.  e.  quasinon  legendi 
(also  canonici  kuto.  ti,  i.  e.  only  relatively)  ;  Prideaux  distinguishes  a  Canon 
Jidei  and  a  Canon  morum.  Cf.  Chemnitz,  I.  c,  §  20  ;  Quenstedt,  Theol.  did. 
poL,  I.  pp.  61,  235,  etc.  The  grounds  of  rejection  were  linguistic  (because 
not  in  Hebrew),  historical  (because  not  in  the  Synagogue) ;  more  and  more, 
however,  derived  from  the  contents,  and  especially  by  the  Reformed  gathered 
with  much  bitterness  and  passionateness  :  Falsa,  superstitiosa,  suspecta,  men- 
dacia,  fabulosa,  impia.  Chamier,  Panstrat.  cath.,  Pt.  I.  Bk.  V.  ;  Alting,  Loci 
comm.,  1646,  p.  282  ;  Du  Moulin,  I.  c,  p.  34  ;  A.  Regis,  Exercc.  de  II.  can.  et 
apocr.,  1715;  Heidegger,  Corpus  theol.,  y>-  37,  etc.  Also  among  the  Lutherans, 
though  more  temperate  in  expression,  Gerhard,  Loci,  ed.  Cotta,  II.  134  ff. 

341.  In  proportion  to  tlie  rigidness  with  which  the  power 
of  tradition  held  the  scientific  investigation  of  the  canon  bound 
was  the  completeness  and  permanence  of  the  reaction  which 
finally  broke  these  bonds.  The  skeptical  spirit  of  the  eight- 
eenth century,  after  having  first,  on  German  soil  also,  passed 
through  the  phases  of  English  superficiality  and  French  frivol- 
ity, began  here,  partly  as  dogmatic  rationalism,  partly  as  his- 
toi'ical  criticism,  a  hard  and  determined  battle  with  the  tradi- 
tional doctrines  and  opinions.  This  battle  was  a  very  unequal 
one,  and  ended  in  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  old  orthodoxy. 
For  the  theologians  of  the  old  school,  in  their  loyal  adherence 
to  a  system  wliich  they  had  not  created,  and  the  acquisition  of 
which  had  been  to  them  for  the  most  part  only  a  mechanical 


SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY  — SKEPTICAL  REACTION.   355 

task,  without  inner  experience,  came  wholly  unprepared  into 
conflict  with  the  resokite  champions  of  a  newly  won  faith, 
many  of  whom  confronted  them  with  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
history,  and  the  rest,  conceahng  the  weakness  of  their  historical 
knowledge  behind  the  boldness  of  their  assertions,  confused,  if 
they  did  not  confute,  their  opponents. 

Spinoza's  (§  5G3)  peculiar  opinions  as  to  the  origin  of  the  O.  T.,  that  it 
was  not  produced  until  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  then  according  to  a  definite 
plan,  had  offended  the  ideas  of  the  age  in  too  many  ways  to  make  a  lasting 
impression.  But  their  refutation  led  to  investigations  which  were  useful  in 
the  first  place  to  apologetics,  but  afterward  to  the  opposition  also. 

Toland  (^Aniyntor,  1699)  delared  the  whole  N.  T.  spurious  on  the  basis  of 
precarious  arguments  derived  from  the  state  of  the  text,  the  loss  of  the 
originals,  and  the  personality  of  the  authors. 

W.  Wliistou  (Primitive  New  Testament,  1745,  and  other  writings),  on  the 
other  hand,  maintained  that  all  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  Hernias  and  the  Epis- 
tle to  Diognetus  included,  also  3  Corinthians  and  the  Epistle  of  the  Corin- 
thians to  Paul,  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  an  alleged  Homily  of  Timo- 
thy (Justin  ?),  were  admitted  into  the  canon. 

Diderot  (Pense'es  phil.,  17-16,  §  60)  attacks  the  authority  of  a  canon  on  ac- 
count of  its  inconstancy  in  ancient  times,  the  imcertainty  of  the  text,  etc. 
Les  premiers  fondements  de  la  foi  sont  done  purement  humains  ;  les  choix  entre 
les  MSS.,  la  restitution  des  passages,  enfin  la  collection  s'estfaite  par  des  regies 
de  critique  ;  etje  ne  refuse  point  a  ajouter  a  la  divinite  des  livres  sacre's  un  de- 
gre  de  foi  proportionne  a  la  certitude  de  ces  regies. 

De  la  Serre  (Pseudo-Burnet),  La  vraie  religion,  1767,  p.  37  :  Qui  m'assure 
que  les  livres  de  VEcritureont  etc  dictes  par  le  S.  Esprit?  Jesus  ne  nous  les 
a  pas  laisses  ;  Mahomet  au  mains  a  fait  V Alcoran.  .  .  .  Farce  quHl  sef era  un 
renversement  dans  Vimagination  de  S.  Paul,  quHl  s'avisera  de  se  convertir  et 
d'e'crire  quatorze  epitres  a  diverses  peuples  .  .  .  on  m^obligera  de  reconnaitre 
ces  livres  comme  la  parole  de  Dieu  etje  passerai  pourfou  sije  n''en  crois  rien. 
.  ,  ,  La  division  des  II.  de  I'^criture  en  protocanoniques  et  deuterocanoniques  ne 
fait-elle  pas  voir  que  c'est  uniquement  le  caprice  des  hommes  qui  les  a  consacrc's  a 
leur  gre  .  .  .  1  Dans  Vespace  de  plusieurs  siecles  on  n'aura  regarde  un  livre  que 
comme  un  ouvrage  ordinaire  et  tout  d'un  coup,  puree  que  ce  livre  contiendra  un 
passage  propre  pour  etre  cite  contre  de  nouveaux  he'retiques,  on  le  canonisera  f 

As  a  rule,  however,  in  Germany  as  well  as  elsewhere,  the  attack  was  made 
directly  upon  the  contents  of  the  Bible  and  not  upon  its  external  history,  and 
it  is  mentioned  simply  as  a  symptom  of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  as  at  the 
same  time  a  measure  of  the  overstraining  of  the  ancient  principles  which  led 
to  the  reaction. 

Edelmann  (Glaubensbek.,  1746,  p.  55):  Wer  kann  sick  einbilden,  dass  Gott, 
da  er  die  Confusion  der  Abschrifftcnund  die  daraus  entstehende  Zdnkereyen  vor- 
ausgesehn,  nicht  viel  eher  die  Originalien  kdtte  erhalten  als  verbrennen  lassen  sol- 
len,  wenn  er  hdtte  haben  tvollen  dass  todte  Buchstaben  die  bestdndige  Regel  des 
Lebens  aller  Menschen  sein  sollen  ?  P.  99:  Das  toill  die  Sache  gar  nicht  ausmachen 
dass  die  Parthey  derjenigen  die  nur  die  bekannten  vier  Evv.  canonisiret  die  an- 
dern  alle  iihern  Hauffen  verwirfft  .  .  .  denn  das  ki'mnen  die  andern  Partheyen 
die  ihre  Evv.  vor  dcht  halten  mit  unsern  vieren  aiich  thun.  —  Cf .  especially  §  575. 

(G.  L.  Oeder)  Freie  Unterss.  ilber  einige  Bilrher  des  A.  T.,  1756,  with  ad- 
ditions and  notes  by  G.  J.  L.  Vogel,  H.  1771,  8°  (against  Esther,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  and  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.)  ;  idem,  Christl.  freie  (Inters, 
iiber  d.  sog.  Off'b.  Joh.,  ed.  Semler,  H.  1769,  8°.  Cf.  Ernesti,  Neueste  theol. 
Bibl,  I.  687,  11.  195  ;  Michaelis,  Or.  bibl,  II.  1;  Walch,  Neueste  Rel.-Gesch., 
VII.  241 ;  Schrockh,  Neuere  K.-Gesch.,  VIII.  383. 


356  HISTORY   OF  THE   CANON. 

G.  E.  Lessing  (f  1781)  not  only  exerted  a  general  and  indirect  influence 
(§  571),  as  a  thinker  and  writer,  upon  the  revolution  of  ideas  (see  especially 
Nathan  and  Die  Entstehung  des  Menschengeschlechts),  but  he  had  also,  through 
his  proper  theological  writings,  a  direct  influence  upon  the  historical  and  the- 
ological conception  of  the  canon.  He  naturally  took  delight  in  criticism 
considered  sinijjly  as  a  form  of  thought,  and  the  practice  of  it  was  to  him  a 
higher  thing  than  the  obtaining  of  results.  But  although  he  was  the  embodi- 
ment of  that  Protestantism  whose  living  principle  is  free  investigation  and 
which  really  first  arose  with  him,  yet  he  had  no  connection  or  symi^athy  with 
the  current  tlieology,  whose  bustle  and  talk  appeared  to  him  miserable  bog- 
gling in  comparison  with  the  orthodox  system.  Only  the  inconsistencies  of 
the  Orthodox  aroused  his  wrath  (especially  J.  M.  Goze,  §  581).  —  Publication 
of  the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments  (§  575)  and  the  controversial  writings  called 
oiit  thereby.  (Religion  and  history  two  separate  realms  ;  Christianity  older 
than  the  Scriptures  and  independent  of  them  ;  hence  the  reinstatement  of 
tradition  ;  distinction  of  letter  and  spirit  ;  of  Bible  and  faith  ;  the  internal 
truth,  not  the  external  attestation,  decides  the  value  of  religious  things,  etc.) 
—  Theol.  Nachlass.,  B.  1784,  for  the  most  part  only  fragments  ;  p.  73  : 
theses  from  the  history  of  the  Church  (a  short  theory  of  tlie  history  of  the 
canon  ;  contents  :  the  rule  of  faith  existed  before  the  Scriptures,  and  at 
the  first  the  latter  had  no  authority  apart  from  the  former) ;  p.  107:  the  canon 
of  all  the  N.  T.  writings  took  shape  as  it  were  at  random,  entirely  without 
plan,  through  the  zeal  of  individual  members.  Evil  consequences  :  divided 
opinions  respecting  various  epistles.  The  Revelation  of  John  an  evidence 
how  aimlessly  the  canon  was  formed,  etc.  Cf.  Danzel  and  Guhrauer, 
Lessing's  Leben  und  Werke,  1850,  2  Pts.  ;  Eytel,  Lessing  als  Theolog 
(Wilrtemb.  Studien,  1848,  1.)  ;  C.  Schwarz,  Lessing  als  Theolog,  H.  1854  ;  F. 
Lichtenberger,  La  ihe'ologie  de  Lessing,  Str.  1854  ;  F.  Smith,  Lessing  as  a 
Theologian  (Theol.  Review,  July,  1868).  Cf.  also  the  writings  of  Nitzsch  and 
Lucke  cited  in  §  290. 

From  a  wholly  different  standpoint,  and  in  close  connection  with  novel 
views  of  inspiration,  Swedenborg  and  his  followers  declare  only  the  Gospels 
and  the  Apocalypse  to  be  inspired  and  canonical.  See  the  Catechism  of  the 
New  Church. 

342.  Johann  Salomo  Semler  was  the  first  to  undertake  to 
improve  upon  the  common  conceptions  of  the  canon.  He  gave 
to  his  criticism  an  essentially  historical  basis  by  commending 
and  practicing  tlie  study  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  literature, 
thus  leading  to  a  recognition  of  the  gradual  and  fluctuating 
formation  of  our  present  collection.  He  was  the  first  also  to 
bring  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  literature  into  close 
connection  with  the  development  of  doctrine.  But  here  he  too 
was  affected  by  the  spirit  of  the  age;  for  he  maintained  that 
the  usefulness  of  the  individual  books,  a  matter  often  one- 
sidedly  judged  of,  should  decide  as  to  their  canonicity,  theoret- 
ically, therefore,  preferring  the  ancient  Latin  principle  of  a 
church  canon  to  the  Greek  principle  of  a  canon  of  faith.  His 
work  has  been  of  lasting  influence  on  both  sides,  and  in  spite 
of  violent  opposition,  both  at  the  first  and  afterward,  is  even 
yet  of  perceptible  importance. 

On  Semler  see  above,  §  18  ;  but  especially  §  573,  where  also  the  literature 
respecting  him  is  cited. 


SEMLER.  357 

J.  S.  Semler,  Alhandlung  von  freier  Uniersuchung  des  Kanons,  Halle, 
1771-75  (Pt.  I.,  2d  ed.,  1776)  4  Pts.  8°,  in  connection  with  which  especially 
his  theological  letters,  III.  81  ff.  Cf.  Ernesti,  Neueste  theol.  Bibl.,  II.  429  ; 
III.  451  ;  Michaelis,  Bibl,  III.  2G  ;  Walch  and  Schrdckh,  II.  cc.  The  replies 
he  himself  considers  in  part  in  extended  answers,  Pts.  II.-IV.;  the  most 
voluminous  was  the  Gesch.  des  Kanons  of  C.  F.  Schmid,  §  289.  Cf.  also 
J.  B.  Sohm,  Lutheranormn  novissima  dissidia  de  canone,  Const.  1780. 

The  innovations  of  Semler  concerned  (1)  the  proof  of  numerous  and 
important  variations  of  the  most  ancient  canon,  or  at  least  of  individual  wit- 
nesses, from  the  subsequent  one  ;  on  this  point,  however,  he  did  not  go 
beyond  purely  negative  criticism  ;  (2)  a  peculiar  definition  of  the  idea  of  the 
canon,  in  which  the  dogmatic  element,  as  regula  Jidei,  was  lost ;  (3)  an  attack 
upon  the  traditional  idea  of  inspiration,  likewise  rather  negatively  sustained, 
and  combined  with  a  definite  distinction  between  Scripture  and  the  Word  of 
God  ;  (4)  a  criticism  of  the  practical  usefulness  of  particular  books,  and  the 
estimation,  on  this  basis,  of  their  theological  value  ;  essentially  negative, 
unfavorable  to  the  Apocalypse,  Canticles,  and  other  books,  especially  of  the 
O.  T.  ;  (5)  the  higher  estimation  of  internal  evidence  in  the  investigation  of 
genuineness  ;  (6)  the  frequent  application  of  the  theory  of  accommodation 
in  judging  of  dogmatic  contents. 

In  view  of  the  ill-arranged  and  cumbrous  character  of  Semler's  work,  its 
influence  would  be  inexplicable  if  its  principles  had  not  become  popular 
thi'ough  an  academic  activity  of  forty  years,  while  many  older  views  had 
become  untenable,  and  if,  at  the  same  time,  the  more  elegant  learning  of  a 
Michaelis  and  the  fresh  living  spirit  of  a  Herder  had  not  helped  on  the  revo- 
lution. Baur,  in  the  T'dh.  Jahrh.,  1850,  IV.  518  ff.,  gives  a  thorough 
characterization  of  Sender  in  this  regard. 

The  numerous  apologetic  writings  were  more  particularly  directed  against 
the  superficial  deistic  criticism,  even  after  1760  ;  e.  g.,  Lilienthal,  Gute  Sache 
d.  Ojfenh.,  Pt.  XV.  ;  W.  Paley,  Evidences  of  Christianity,  I.  The  conserva- 
tively scientific  work  of  J.  F.  Kleuker,  on  the  contrary,  is  written  in  the 
spirit  of  modern  investigation  :  Unters.  der  Griindefiir  die  Echtheit  der  Urk. 
des  Chr.,  1793  ff.,  5  Pts.  incomplete. 

343.  The  friends  of  the  older  views  found  themselves  com- 
pelled to  enter  the  field  against  their  opponents  and  to  contend 
with  them  with  weapons  of  their  choosing.  There  at  once 
arose  discussions,  carried  on  more  and  more  systematically, 
calmly,  learnedly,  and  circumspectly,  mostly  upon  individual 
books,  of  the  Old  Testament  now  as  well  as  the  New,  and 
incidentally  on  the  idea  of  the  canon  itself.  These  discussions 
still  continue,  and  have  lost  none  of  their  importance  or  their 
interest.  As  the  method  became  more  and  more  complicated, 
and  the  estimation  of  arguments  more  and  more  dependent  on 
the  subjective  views  of  the  critics,  the  more  impossible  was 
agreement.  The  rampant  undergrowth  of  unfruitful  hypotheses 
overspread  and  concealed  the  solid  ground  of  history,  and  must 
be  laboriously  cleared  away  again ;  skepticism  spread  ;  acute- 
ness  and  abuse  of  criticism  bordered  close  on  each  other  and 
caused  the  very  principles  of  the  latter  to  be  suspected ;  and  it 
was  often  true  on  both  sides  in  such  investigations  that  it  was 
not  so  much  the  historical  questions  themselves  as  the  theo- 
logical ones  lying  behind  them  which  assured  to  the  contro- 
versy its  importance  and  at  the  same  time  its  endlessness. 


358  HISTORY   OF   THE   CANON. 

To  relate  in  detail  the  course  of  these  discussions  does  not  lie  within  the 
plan  of  this  history.  Moreover  they  have  been  introduced,  so  far  as  they  have 
interest,  at  the  appropriate  points  in  our  First  Book.  We  only  observe  here 
that  beside  the  ancient  Antilegoniena  a  great  number  of  other  books  were 
now  questioned  ;  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  since  1807,  by  Schleiermacher  and 
Eiclihorn  ;  2  Thessalonians  by  J.  E.  C.  Schmidt,  since  the  same  time  ;  the 
Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John  since  1820  by  Bretschneider,  Matthew  since 
1824  by  Schulz  ;  Ephesians  and  Acts  by  l)e  Wette,  1826  ;  Colossians  by 
Mayerhoff,  1838  ;  Mark  in  1836  by  Credner,  etc.  All  these  investigations, 
however,  even  when  mistaken  in  their  immediate  results,  led  more  and  more 
generally  to  the  purely  historical  method  of  treating  the  subject. 

In  the  O.  T.  should  be  first  mentioned  the  investigations  on  the  Pentateuch, 
which  have  changed  the  whole  conception  of  the  Hebrew  literature,  nay 
even  of  Israelitish  history,  especially  since  Vater  ;  on  Isaiah,  Zechariah,  the 
Psalms,  Solomon,  and  all  the  historical  books.  It  may  be  remarked  in  gen- 
eral that  in  both  Testaments  the  didactic  writings  (Prophets  and  Epistles) 
have  been  shown  to  be  comparatively  the  most  genuine  kernel  of  the  bibli- 
cal literature  (in  the  purely  literary-historical  sense),  i.  e.  the  best  attested 
and  the  earliest  completed,  and  the  historical  books  the  later  accession.  Cf. 
§  171.     [See  the  author's  Gesch.  des  A.  T.,  1883.] 

344.  Special  mention  is  due  here  only  to  the  completely  al- 
tered view  of  the  early  history  of  Christianity  and  its  literature 
advocated  and  established  by  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur  and 
his  followers  of  the  Tiibingen  School.  According  to  this  view 
the  peculiar  doctrinal  content  of  each  writing  gives  the  key 
to  its  origin ;  so  that  the  idea  of  the  development  of  the  apos- 
tolic doctrine  appears  essentially  complete  before  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  documents  with  respect  to  the  time 
of  their  origin  has  properly  begun.  Now  inasmuch  as  this 
system  at  the  same  time  assumes  a  much  more  gradual  prog- 
ress of  this  development,  on  the  one  side  in  the  direction  of 
higher  speculation,  on  the  other  toward  the  fusion  of  Jewish 
Christian  and  Pauline  elements,  than  is  usually  assumed,  a 
later  date  results  for  the  origin  of  most  of  the  books  found  in 
ovir  pi'esent  canon,  the  majority  of  which  consequently  fall  in 
the  post-apostolic  period,  and  even  in  the  second  century. 
Thus  the  idea  of  a  canon,  even  in  the  loosest  sense,  is  reduced 
to  small  dimensions,  and  in  a  certain  view  of  the  case  it  even 
becomes  doubtful  whether  the  original  thought  of  the  Gospel 
is  still  recorded  in  writing  at  all. 

The  complete  view  of  the  Tiibingen  School  respecting  the  early  history  of 
Christianity  (Jesus  included),  or  of  the  early  Christian  literature  in  particu- 
lar, was  for  a  long  time  nowhere  consistently  and  pragmatically  stated .  The 
numerous  writings  of  F.  C.  Baur  and  his  pupils,  E.  Zeller,  A.  Schwegler, 
R.  Kostlin,  A.  Hilgenfeld,  and  others,  important  for  the  elucidation  of  critical 
questions,  some  of  them  pioneer  works,  and  all  stimulating,  have  been  cited 
and  considered  at  the  appropriate  places  in  the  First  Book.  Formerly  the 
most  comprehensive  works  were  :  Schwegler's  NacJiap.  Zeitalier,  Tiib.  1846, 
2  Pts.  ;  Kostlin,  Lehrhegriff  des  Ev.  J  oh.  (and  of  the  N.  T.  writings  in  gen- 
eral), B.  1843  ;  A.  Ritschl  (who  has  now,  however,  in  essential  points  aban- 
doned the  views  of  Baur),  Entstehung  der  altkath.  Kirchc  (1st  ed.},  Bonn, 


TUBINGEN  SCHOOL.  359 

1850  ;  cf.  in  general  the  Tub.  theoL  Jalirh.,  1S42-1S57,  by  Baur  and  Zeller  ; 
Jenaer  Zeitschr.  fur  wlssenscliaftl.  TheoL,  by  Hilgeufeld,  since  1858  ;  Baur, 
Die  Tuhinger  Schule  und  Hire  Stellung  zur  Gegenwart,  Tub.  1859.  AVe  must 
now  name  as  the  principal  work  :  Baur,  Das  Christenihum  und  die  christUche 
Kirche  der  drei  ersten  Jalirb.,  Tiib.  1853  [E.  tr.  by  A.  Menzies,  Lond.  1879, 

2  vols.]  ;  more  popular,  G.  Volkmar,  Die  Religion  Jesu  in  ihrer  ersten  Ent- 
wicklung,  L.  1857. 

A.  Kayser,  L'jScole  de  Baur  (Revue  de  TheoL,  II.  257  ff.)  ;  S.  Berger,  Les 
origines  de  I'ecole  de  Tub.  et  ses  principes,  Str.  18G7. 

In  criticism  :  H.  Bbttger,  Baur's  hist.  Kritik  in  ihrer  Consequenz,  Brg.  1840, 

3  vols.  ,  W.  O.  Dietlein,  Das  Urchristenthum,  Halle,  1845  ;  Guerike,  Das 
Urchristenthum  u.  s.  Anschauung  durch  Baur  (in  the  Zeitschr.  fiir  luth.  TheoL, 
1846,  IV.)  ;  G.  L.  Hahn,  Ueber  den  gegenwartigen  Stand  der  neuteslL  Kritll; 
Br.  1848  ;  H.  W.  J.  Tliiersch,  Versuch  zur  Herstellung  des  hist.  Standjmnktes 

fiir  die  Kritik  der  neutestL  Schriften,  Erl.  1845  ;  the  same,  Einige  Worte 
iiber  die  Echtheit  der  neutestL  Schr.,  1846  ;  Frank,  in  the  Wilrtemb.  Studien, 
1848,  II.  ;  and  numerous  special  essays,  which  see  above  in  the  proper 
place.  G.  Uhlhorn,  Die  alteste  Kirchengeschichte  in  ihrer  neuesten  Darstellung, 
in  the  Stuttg.  Jahrb.,  1857,  III.  ;  1858,  II.,  III.  ;  C.  Schwarz,  Zur  Gesch.  d. 
neuesten  TheoL,  1856,  p.  153  flP. 

The  prevailingly  negative  results  of  the  criticism  of  Baur  and  his  school  are 
in  themselves  no  proof  of  error,  as  apologetics  has  only  too  often  represented 
it ;  but  the  system  has  its  weak  points,  in  which  it  must  be  essentially 
changed  or  fall.  We  have  already  pointed  out  in  this  connection  the  stu- 
diously obscure  reserve  of  judgment  respecting  Jesus  ;  the  breach  between 
him  and  Paul  ;  the  altogether  too  harsh  intensification  of  the  opposition  be- 
tween the  latter  and  the  other  Apostles  ;  the  failure  to  recognize  the  germs 
of  organization  even  in  the  earliest  Jewish  Christianity,  and  their  i)ower  ; 
the  assumption,  never  yet  justified,  of  so  very  late  a  date  for  most  of  the 
N.  T.  Avritings  ;  the  rashness  of  judgment  by  which  tlie  genuineness  of  many 
of  them  is  denied,  —  often  sacrificed  rather  to  the  logic  of  the  system  than 
to  sufficient  proof  ;  tlie  character  of  the  process  of  development  as  it  is  rep- 
resented, which  is  throughout  rather  external  and  mechanical  than  internal 
and  dynamic,  etc.  Not  even  in  the  light  of  the  most  recent  discoveries, 
by  whicli  many  things  have  been  altered  or  modified,  should  we  be  able 
wholly  to  retract  any  of  these  criticisms.  But  the  system  will  never  be  ef- 
fectively combated  when  it  is  rejected  in  a  lump. 

345.  The  gain  which  has  come  to  science  from  all  these  dis- 
cussions ought  not  to  be  measured  by  the  particular  results 
which  may  have  enjoyed  a  more  general  acceptance.  These 
will  be  still  less  numerous  in  the  future  than  now,  and  there  is 
no  prospect  that  the  contest  will  ever  wholly  cease.  But  it 
must  be  taken  into  account  that  criticism  has  long  since  ceased 
to  be  the  exclusive  prerogative  or  weapon  of  a  particular  school, 
that  many  questions  have  become  independent  of  dogmatics, 
and  that  the  position  of  parties  upon  the  ecclesiastical  field 
does  not  always  necessarily  dictate  in  advance  the  decision  in 
purely  historical  matters.  This  is  a  great  step  toward  the  dis- 
covery of  the  truth.  The  method  is  improved;  tradition, 
which  formerly,  in  spite  of  its  uncertainty,  exercised  the  office 
of  judge  without  limitation,  contents  itself  with  the  more 
modest  role  of  a  witness,  and  where  once  a  blind  instinct  was 
the  guide,  science  now  gives  her  light. 


360  HISTORY   OF  THE   CANON. 

To  enumerate  points  upon  which  controversy  has  been  fought  out  and  final 
results  reached  is  not  to  our  purpose,  the  less  so  since  these  would  be  pre- 
cisely the  least  important  things,  and  historical  criticism  ought  never  to  re- 
gard itself  as  complete. 

346.  But  the  most  profound  change  has  taken  place  in  the 
theological  conception  of  the  canon  itself.  While  the  older 
Protestant  system  was  chiefly  emphasizing  in  the  definition  of 
it  the  supernatural  inspiration  of  the  books,  their  inner  insep- 
arableness  and  direct  relation  to  salvation,  the  modern  histor- 
ico-rational  dogmatics  was  beginning  to  regard  tliem  only  as 
documents  or  records,  either  bf  the  Jewish  and  Christian  relig- 
ions in  their  ideal  conception,  or  even  for  the  time  of  their 
origin  only.  The  Old  Testament,  once  forming  a  whole  with 
the  New,  as  propliecy  and  fulfillment,  sank  to  the  position  of 
a  useful  source  of  aid  in  the  understanding  of  the  New.  Vari- 
ous attempts  have  been  made  in  our  day  to  overcome  this 
point  of  view,  and  to  reestablish  the  theological  method  of 
treating  the  Scriptures  as  opposed  to  the  purely  historical. 
But  many  of  them  are  timid  or  obscure,  and  much  weakened, 
both  by  the  fact  that  criticism  has  caused  too  many  things  to 
appear  in  a  different  light  than  formerly,  and  by  the  fact  that 
theology  itself,  at  least  in  Germany,  has  neither  the  ability  nor 
the  desire  to  restore  the  former  idea  of  inspiration.  Yet  the 
desire  will  not  always  be  lacking  ;  indeed,  even  now  the  neces- 
sity is  felt,  with  reference  to  the  completeness  and  purity  of 
the  whole  collection,  of  holding  fast  fundamentally  to  the  tra- 
ditional position,  convinced  that  unless  the  vessel  be  kept  in- 
violate the  contents  must  be  lost. 

For  illustrations,  see  the  last  twenty  sections  of  our  Fifth  Book,  and  the 
chapter  on  the  Scriptures  in  any  compendium  of  dogmatics  since  1790.  We 
give  a  few  examples. 

Reinhard's  Voriesungen  uber  die  Dogmatik,  1799  :  §  16  :  Fons  a  quo  manure 
debet  omnis  reUgionis  doctrina  est  S.  S.  inprimis  N.  T. ;  §  21  if.,  the  authority 
of  the  O.  T.  depends  for  us  on  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  ; 
Novi  Test,  origo  divina  nititur  testimonio  autorum  ipsorum  ;  but  the  diiference 
of  opinion  respecting  the  canonicity  of  particular  books  is  of  no  moment  ; 
§  28  :  Humana  ratio  examinare  II.  ss.  argumentum  et  legitinice  interpretationi 
prceesse  debet,  sed  in  iis  rebus  quce  sunt  a  repugnantia  liberoe  et  in  II.  ss.  manifeste 
traditre,  autoritati  divince  obtemperare  debet. 

Doderlein,  Instit.  th.  chr.  (1779),  ed.  6,  1797  ;  §  26  :  Only  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  fons  primarius;  the  O.  T.,  reason,  and  tradition,  nrefontes  secundarii, 
of  decreasing  value  ;  §  31  fE. :  The  canonical  collection  arose  out  of  practical 
necessities  ;  the  canon  is  a  catalogue  of  church  books,  not  everywhere  the 
same,  and  nowhere  officially  fixed.  But  all  the  books  authentic,  none 
lost,  their  content  not  having,  in  all  its  elements,  equal  connection  with  the 
Christian  religion. 

Eckermann,  Compend.  th.  chr.,  1792,  p.  12  if.  :  ReUgionis  revelatce  historia 
et  doctrina  continetur  II.  ss.  qui  partim  a  prophetis  Israelitarum  scripti  a  Jndceis 
pro  sinceris  doctr.  mos.  fontibus  habiti  sunt,  partim  discipulns  Christi  vel  horum 
amicos  auctores  habuerunt,  .  .  quibus  id  egerunt  Apostoli  ut  Christianis  constan- 


(CHANGE  IN  THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  CANON.       361 

tiam  pietatem  et  virtutem  commendarent,  singulis  ea  scribentes  quce  lecturis,  illo 
tempore  prcesertim,  utilissima  viderentur. 

Heuke,  Tnstitt.  Jidei  chr.,  1793,  p.  8  ff. :  Hauriendi  est  solidior  et  purior  doctr. 
chr.  scientia  ex  II.  N.  F.,  deinde,  quia  Jesus  et  App.  librorum  Judceis  ss.  com- 
mendarunt  reverentiam.  .  .  nee  satis  possunt  priores  illi  intelligi  nisi  his  probe 
simul  tractatis,  adJiibenda  est  collectio  V.  F.  Both  testaments  have  the  same 
purpose,  ut  docunienta  et  prcesidia  rectce  Deum  colendi  et  vitam  instituendi  ra- 
tionis  adessent,  non  tarn  omnis  cevi  quam  sui  temporis  et  loci  hominibus  proxime 
inservitura,  but  differ  ui  that  in  the  one  Moses  is  the  princi^jal  person,  in  the 
other  Christ,  etc.  Canonicos  vocarnus  quos  ecclesia  publicce  lectioni  destinavit, 
nee  semper  nee  ubivis  eosdem. 

Weg-scheider,  Institt.  (1815),  8th  ed.  1844,  p.  162  :  Ex  historia  canonis  non 
interna  sed  externa  singg.  pai'tium  auctoritas  repeti  et  Jirmari  potest.  Nee  tamen 
dubitari  potest  quin  canone  N.  T.  inprimis  Us  dictis  quce  a  J.  C.  ipso  recte  repe- 
tuntur,  relig.  chr.  veritatisque  div.  documenta  antiquissima  et  fide  dignissima  con- 
tineantur.  Page  147  :  the  O.  T.,  secwidarius  fans,  m  part  contradictory  of  the 
New,  in  part  expressly  abrogated,  yet  serviceable  capita  (N.  T.),fidei  paucis 
tantum  commemorata  argumentis  idoneis  apte  illustrare. 

Hase,  Ev.  Dogm.  (18l>6),  5th  ed.  1860,  §  24  :  The  Sacred  Scriptures  of 
the  N.  T.,  as  the  only  historically  trustworthy  record  of  its  first  appearance, 
are  the  sole  source  of  original  Christianity.  The  Old  Testament  serves  only 
as  a  historical  foundation  and  for  explanation.  .  .  .  etc.  (Possibility  of  error 
and  contradiction  in  the  history  ;  manifold  development  of  the  doctrine  that 
that  method  is  to  be  regarded  as  completely  Christian  which  corresponds 
most  perfectly  to  the  religious  idea.)  §  28  :  Everything  Christian  is  not 
necessarily  contained  in  the  N.  T.,  though  everything  is  to  be  proved  from 
the  N.  T. 

Schleiermacher,  Christl.  Glaube  (1820),  2d  ed.  1831,  II.  352  fp.  Faith  in 
Clu'ist  precedes  faith  in  the  Scriptures.  The  N.  T.  is  the  first  member  in 
the  continuous  series  of  all  presentations  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  standard  for  those  that  follow.  The  separate  parts  of  the  N. 
T.  were  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  collection  was  formed  under  his 
guidance  (these  propositions,  however,  as  well  as  that  respecting  authen- 
ticity, removed  by  development  froni  the  spirit  of  the  older  system).  The  O. 
T.  owes  its  position  in  the  Bible  only  to  the  quotations  in  the  N.  T.  and  to 
the  arrangement  of  divine  service  after  the  model  of  the  synagogue. 

Twesten,  Dogm.,  2d  ed.  1829,  I.  445  ff.,  founds  canonicity  chiefly  upon  the 
direct  evidence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  wliich  a  writing  proves  itself  inspired, 
though  without  making  the  historical  evidence  a  merely  incidental  matter. 

Nitzsch,  System  der  christlichen  Lehre,  5th  ed.  1844,  §  42  :  Faith  in  the 
Scriptures  (not  a  faith  in  the  letter,  consequently  not  to  be  founded  upon 
ecclesiastical  tradition  alone  nor  upon  mechanical  theories  of  inspiration)  is 
the  conviction  that  the  Scriptures,  by  the  same  divine  act  and  power  to 
which  we  owe  revelation  and  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  have  become  an 
only,  clear,  and  complete  means  of  transmitting  the  word  of  God.  It  is 
based  .  .  .  upon  the  spiritual  experience  which  we  have  both  of  the  inner 
unity  and  of  the  distinction  between  the  Scriptures  and  the  word  of  God. 
The  church  distinguishes  proto-  and  deutero-eanonical  Scriptures,  therefore 
different  kinds  and  degrees  of  inspiration,  and  it  is  only  to  the  whole  as  such 
that  the  properties  of  infallibility,  sufficiency,  and  completeness  belong. 

Grimm,  Institt.  th.  ev.  (1848),  1869,  p.  98  :  Ex  historica  notione  S.  S.  est 
complexio  II.  qui  primitives  rel.  et  hist.  hebr.  et  chr.  fontes  continent.  E  dogmat- 
ica  notione  antiquioribus  probata  verbum  Dei  immediato  et  miraculoso  Sp.  S. 
afflatu  a  prophetis  et  app.  salutis  humance  causa  Uteris  consignatum.  E  dogmat- 
ica  notione  nostri  cevi  rationibus  accommodata  complexio  II.  divinam  de  salute 
per  Chr.  hominibus  consequenda  institutionem  continentium. 

Cf.  in  general,  in  order  to  appreciate  the  revolution  in  the  theological  con- 


362  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

ception  of  the  subject:  Holtzmann,  iTanon  und  Tradition  (§  332). — Re- 
cently, however,  even  on  the  strictly  conservative  side,  not  only  has  the  ! 
necessity  been  recognized  theoretically  of  respecting  the  rights  of  history  in 
the  decision  of  matters  of  an  essentially  historical  character,  but  practical 
attempts  have  been  made  to  give  to  the  science  of  the  Scriptures  by  this 
very  means  a  fiimer  foundation  than  had  been  done  from  the  almost  a  priori 
standpoint  of  the  older  theology  :  J.  C.  C.  Hofmann  (§  590)  ;  but  especially 
Kahnis,  Die  lutherixche  Doginatik,  L.  1861,  I.  ;  also  his  Zeugniss  von  den  i 
Grundwalirheiten  des  Protestantismus  gegen  Hengstenberg,  L.  1862. 

347.  These  discussions  have  not  everywhere  found  an  eclio  out- 
side of  Germany,  partly  simply  because  of  the  opposition  which 
they  have  encountered,  often  without  being  understood.  Cal- 
vinism, with  less  disposition  to  mysticism,  cherishes  a  greater 
respect  for  the  written  word.  The  English  Church,  scarcely 
able  to  protect  itself  from  the  multitude  of  bigoted  and  fanati- 
cal sects,  guards  with  scrupulous  strictness  its  ancient  double 
inheritance  of  a  dry  orthodoxy  and  rich  livings.  In  a  country 
where  scholastic  controversial  questions  are  among  the  qualifi- 
cations for  power,  and  Protestant  theologians  fi-om  their  pro- 
fessorial chairs  and  in  tracts  carry  on  a  Catholicizing  propa- 
ganda, criticism  of  the  Scriptures  must  be  regarded  as  deism 
even  if  it  is  not  actually  so.  The  recent  efforts  at  critical  in- 
vestigation, much  talked  of  even  in  foreign  lands,  like  light- 
ning in  a  dark  night,  which  rather  startles  than  illuminates, 
have  shown  not  so  much  the  nearness  of  the  dawn  as  the  depth 
of  the  darkness  around.  In  Holland,  the  ancient  home  of  gen- 
uine and  sober-minded  science,  the  same  diverse  tendencies 
have  in  our  day  manifested  themselves  as  everywhere  where 
theology  has  kept  pace  with  the  spiritual  life  of  the  people, 
and  she  is  emulating,  with  equal  power,  and  in  both  directions, 
the  endeavor  and  the  production  of  neighboring  countries.  In 
particular,  that  criticism  which  is  least  dependent  upon  tradi- 
tion, and  which  gives  the  greatest  space  to  doubt,  has  there 
found  its  able  advocates.  We  hear  less  from  the  northern 
lands  than  formerly,  but  although  there  is  a  partial  stand-still 
there,  there  are  yet  many  appearances  to  make  us  regret  that 
science  no  longer  speaks  a  universal  language.  Young  Amer- 
ica, finally,  the  precocious  heiress  of  the  Old  World,  is  too  deep 
in  the  rut  of  positive  and  material  production  and  enterprise  to 
care  to  speculate  with  the  unfruitful  capital  of  science. 

It  is  not  merely  the  slight  literary  connection  with  those  lands  that  pre- 
vents me  from  laying  claim  to  greater  completeness  here  ;  the  matter  has 
not  been  worked  up  before  by  those  perhaps  more  skillfid.  Notices  of  Eng- 
lish theological  literature  in  German  periodicals  are  in  general  very  scanty  ; 
see  Gabler's  and  Berthold's  Journals ;  more  recent,  in  the  Strassh.  Revue, 
passim.  The  number  of  comprehensive  and  scholarly  works  on  the  biblical 
literature  that  have  appeared  in  recent  times  in  England  is  not  small,  though 
patristic  learning  and  apologetic  and  practical  aims  prevail:  T.  H.  Home, 


OTHER  LANDS  — ENGLAND  — HOLLAND  — FRANCE.    363 

Introd.  to  the  Critical  Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  9th  ed.  1846,  4  vols. 
[14th  ed.  1877] ;  J.  Townley,  History  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  1821,  3  vols.  ; 
R.  Haldane,  The  Looks  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  1838  ;  J.  M.  Mc- 
Culloch,  Literary  Characteristics  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  1847  ;  G.  Hamilton, 
Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  Hehr.  Scr.,  1814  ;  Horsley,  Biblical  Criticism  on  the 
O.  T.,  4  vols.  1820  ;  J.  Cooke,  Inquiry  into  the  Books  of  the  N.  T.,  1821  ;  S. 
Davidson,  Introd.  to  the  N.  T.,  1848.  Cf.  also  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Litera- 
ture, by  Kitto  and  Burgess,  since  1848,  which  is  by  far  the  best  index  of  the 
state  of  biblical  science  in  England. 

Essays  and  Reviews,  Lond.  18G1,  9th  ed.  Among  them  especially  B.  Jowett, 
On  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture.  (Cf.  Diestel,  in  the  Stuttg.  Jahrh.,  1861, 
IV.)  —  A  Collection  of  Theological  Essays,  from  various  authors,  with  an  in- 
troduction by  G.  R.  Noyes,  Boston,  1856  ;  Essays  and  Reviews,  translated 
from  the  French  by  J.  R.  Beard,  Lond.  1861  ;  J.  W.  Colenso,  The  Pe7itateuch 
and  Book  of  Joshua  critically  examined,  Lond.  1862  &.,  6  vols.  8° ;  The 
Theological  Review,  a  Journal  of  Religious  Thought  and  Life,  Loud,  since  1864 
(quarterly). 

On  Holland  see  in  general  :  H.  J.  Royaards,  De  commutationis  quam  theologia 
in  Nederlandia  suhiit  Scec.  XIX.  via  ac  ratione,  Traj.  1850;  Gelzer's  MonatsbL, 
June,  1861  ;  Schenkel's  Kirchl.  Zeitschr.,  1862,  Heft  7  ;  P.  H.  de  Groot, 
Die  Groninger  Theologen  (German),  Goth.  1863  ;  H.  Scharling,  Den  nyere 
hollandske  Theologie,  Kjcib.  1865  ;  J.  H.  Scholten  (at  Leyden),  Herdenking 
mijner  25j.  Amtshediening,  1865  ;  his  Hist.  krit.  Inleiding  tot  de  Schr.  des  N.  T., 
2d  ed.,  L.  1856  ;  and  many  special  writings  cited  above.  A.  Kuenen  (also 
at  Leyden),  Hist.  krit.  Onderzoek  naar  het  Ontstaan  en  de  Verzameling  v.  d.  BB. 
des  0.  Verbonds,  L.  1861  ff.,  3  vols,  (also  French  by  A.  Pierson,  Par.  1866, 
Pt.  I.).  Cf.  also  :  Tkeologisch  Tijdschrift,  Amst.  and  Leyd.  since  1867.  Both 
are  so-called  special  introductions.  Cf.  Scholten's  Leer  der  hervormde  Kerk, 
4tli  ed.,  1861,  I.  76  ff.  We  obtain  thence  contmually,  if  not  always,  the  prin- 
cipal works,  written  in  Dutch,  yet  numerous  excellent  monographs  in  Latin 
to  which  due  attention  is  always  paid  here. 

On  Scandinavia,  earlier,  in  particular  the  Theol.  Annalen  of  Wachler,  later 
the  Studien,  1828,  1830,  1834,  1838,  always  at  the  close  of  the  year  ;  Beck, 
in  the  Tiib.  Jahrb.,  1844,  III.  Since  the  Danish  scholars  have  ceased  to  use 
the  German  language  in  their  writings  we  hear  little  of  them,  and  transla- 
tions become  a  necessity  and  a  deserved  tribute.  Many  Latin  treatises  still 
come  to  us,  which  exhibit  a  kindred  spirit  and  show  that  they  are  abreast  of 
the  age  there.  Among  the  living  biblical  scholars  of  Denmaik  the  most  dis- 
tinguished is  C.  E.  Scharling,  of  Copeidiagen.  The  periodicals  I  do  not  know 
from  my  own  observation. 

348.  French  Protestantism,  once  the  valiant  champion  of 
spiritual  liberty,  now  but  just  recovering  from  long  and  harsh 
bondage,  as  yet  regards  with  fear  and  distrust  everything  that 
might  shake  the  traditions  which  have  helped  it  to  bear  its 
chains  and  so  become  the  dearer.  Altogether  unproductive 
with  respect  to  science,  at  once  hampered  and  split  into  fac- 
tions by  the  arrangement  of  its  church  life,  and  still  lacking 
courage  and  ability  to  regenerate  itself  from  within,  it  hesitates 
between  the  influence  of  England  and  of  Germany,  the  former 
of  which  works  upon  it  with  ecclesiastical  and  social  activity, 
also  with  money  and  theories  of  freedom,  the  latter  with  ideas 
and  books.  Many  find  safety  midway  in  adopting  the  ideas  of 
the  latter  and  the  freedom  of  the  former  at  the  same  time. 


364  HISTORY  OF   THE   CANON. 

Recently  an  extreme  doctrine  of  the  character  and  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures  has  met  clear  and  decided  opposition,  which, 
in  its  connection  with  a  positive  theological  conviction,  has 
excited  general  attention  and  called  out  much  scientific  dis- 
cussion. 

Ed.  Reuss,  Die  wissenschaftliche  Theologie  unter  den  Protestanten  in  Frank- 
reich  (in  the  Studien,  1844,  I.) ;  H.  Kienlen,  Die  gegenwdrtige  theol.  Bewegung 
in  der  protest.  Kirche  franz.  Zunge  (in  the  Strassb.  Beitr.,  VI.).  Cf.  C. 
Weizsacker,  iu  the  Stuttg.  Jahrb.,  1861,  I.  ;  C.  de  R^musat,  in  the  Revue  des 
Deux  Mondes,  Jan.  1862. 

Earlier,  more  apologetic  treatises  on  the  history  of  the  canon,  in  the 
Geneva  school  :  J.  E.  Cellerier,  Essai  d'une  introduction  critique  au  N.  T. 
(after  Hug),  1823. 

L.  Gaussen  (at  Geneva,  f  1863),  Theopneustie  ou  pleine  inspiration  des  SS. 
J^critures,  P.  1840  ;  a  theory  which  was  afterward  modified  by  the  author 
and  those  of  his  school,  but  which  along  with  its  harshness  lost  also  its 
clearness. 

E.  Scherer  (of  Geneva,  now  at  Versailles),  La  critique  et  lafoi,  Deux  lettres, 
1850,  and  various  essays  in  the  Revue  de  theologie  et  de  philosophie  chretienne, 
pulilished  under  the  direction  of  T.  Colaiii,  Strassb.,  1850-57,  15  vols.; 
Nouvelle  Revue,  1858-62,  10  vols.  ;  3d  series,  1863-69,  7  vols. 

Controversial  writings  by  J.  J.  Cheneviere,  A.  de  Gasparin,  L.  Boimet, 
and  others  ;  J.  H.  Merle  d'Aubigne,  U Autorite  des  Ecritures  inspirees  de  DieUf 
Toul.  1850.  The  discussion  on  the  conservative  side  almost  exclusively 
dogmatic.  The  literary-historical  apologetics  (P.  Jallaguier,  Authenticite  du 
N.  T.,  Toulouse,  1851  ;  cf.  his  Inspiration  du  N.  7\,  P.  1851)  has  never  felt 
able  to  defend  the  Antilogemena  of  the  ancient  church.  The  consciousness 
of  this  weakness  has  led  to  a  theory  of  the  canon  (A.  de  Gasparin,  Les  ecoles 
du  doute  et  Vecole  de  la  foi,  Gen.  1853  ;  La  Bible  defendue,  P.  1855),  which, 
claiming  to  avoid  the  extreme  of  literalism,  proceeding  from  an  instinctive 
fear  of  the  subjective  element  in  religion  and  theology,  lays  down  the 
principle  of  avithority  as  the  palladium  of  Christianity.  It  finds  this 
principle,  however,  not  at  all  in  the  creeds  of  the  Church,  but  in  the  canon, 
and  identifies  inspiration,  —  of  the  Scriptures,  not  of  the  writers,  —  with  the 
idea  of  infallibility,  without  entering  into  any  psychological  or  theological 
explanation  of  it.  Canonicity  and  inspiration,  however,  are  not  to  be  estab- 
lished either  by  the  internal  or  external  evidences  of  ordinary  apologetics, 
and  least  of  all  by  patristic  testimony,  but,  as  respects  the  O.  T.,  simply  by 
the  positive  declaration  of  Jesus,  and  as  respects  the  New,  by  logical  inference 
from  its  equality  of  rank  with  the  former.  This  solution  has  been  received 
by  the  opposite  side  as  a  victory  for  themselves,  by  those  belonging  to  the 
school  of  the  author  as  a  piece  of  rashness  bringing  a  severe  penalty  after  it. 
In  reality  there  only  remains  between  such  a  view  and  tlie  theology  of  the 
mosque  the  distinction  of  consistency.  A  magnificent  attempt  to  depart  from 
this  path  and  to  make  history^itself  subservient  to  theory  is  now  before  us  in 
L.  Gaussen,  Le  canon  des  s.  Ecritures  au  double  point  de  vue  de  la  science  et  de 
la  foi,  Laus.  1860,  2  vols.  ;  O.  de  Grenier-Fajal,  Date  hist,  de  la  formation  du 
canon  du  N.  T.,  Toul.  1867.  —  A  (very  hesitating)  middle  position  is  essayed 
by  (Astier)  M.  Scherer,  ses  disciples  et  ses  adversaires  par  quelquhm  qui  ?i'est 
ni  Vun  ni  Vautre,  1854  ;  he  has  doubtless  succeeded  in  founding  a  third  party, 
but  not  in  stating  any  positive  doctrine.  Here  belong  also  the  work  of  the 
same  author,  Les  deux  theologies,  1861,  and  an  article  by  E.  de  Pressense  on 
Inspiration  in  the  Revue  Chn'tienne,  1862.  Of  later  date  we  may  mention, 
on  the  conservative  side,  E.  Arnaud,  Le  Pentateuque  mosa'ique  dcfendu  contre 
les  attaques  de  la  critique  negative,  P.  1865,  and  F.  Bouifas  (at  Montauban), 


OTHER  LANDS  — FRANCE.  365 

Essai  sur  Vunite  de  Venseignement  apostolique,  P.  1866  ff.  On  the  other  side,  in 
the  spirit  of  free  historical  criticism  :  E.  Haag,  Theologie  BibUque  (literary 
and  religious  history),  Par.  1870. 

How  little  the  relation  of  the  investigations  of  the  canon  to  the  objective 
contents  of  the  Gospel  is  understood  in  the  Catholic  ranks  is  shown  by  an 
article  (otherwise  pertinent)  by  Edgar  Quinet,  in  the  Revue  des  Deux 
Mondes,  Dec.  1838,  on  D.  F.  Strauss,  translated  into  German  by  G.  Kleine, 
1839.  Also,  Expose  des  discussions  survenues  a  Geneve  entre  les  protestants  sur 
Vauiorite  de  VEcr.  S.,  by  the  Abbe  de  Baudry,  1852. 

The  separation  of  Strassburg  from  France  has  for  the  moment,  it  is  true, 
deprived  Frencli  Protestant  science  of  a  mighty  power.  But  the  impulse 
already  given  was  powerful  enough  and  its  effects  will  contmue.  Besides, 
the  spiritual  separation  may  be  only  a  transient  one. 

349.  The  Church  herself  has  kept  altogether  aloof  from 
these  discussions  carried  on  between  the  learned ;  though 
warnings  have  often  been  uttered  in  her  name  against  the 
danger  of  them  or  protests  made  against  their  results.  She 
would  not  have  allowed  herself  to  be  driven  to  a  change  in 
the  traditional  canon  even  had  the  contention  and  investiga- 
tion led  to  generally  admitted  results,  which  was  not  the  case. 
As  matters  now  stand,  the  external  form  of  Scripture,  in  Ger- 
many at  least,  is  no  longer  looked  upon  as  a  thing  of  equal 
importance  with  its  contents,  and  custom  decides  respecting  it 
much  more  than  theological  tenets.  Experience  showed  this 
when  the  English  Bible  Society,  carrying  out  strictly  the  Prot- 
estant principle  of  the  canon,  banished  the  Old  Testament 
Apocrypha  from  the  Bibles  which  it  distributed.  The  rule 
found  acceptance  on  the  continent  only  so  far  as  Anglican 
zeal  and  party  spirit  had  influence.  But  when  in  our  own 
days  the  so-called  Inner  Mission  sees  in  this  exclusion  an  ap- 
propriate means  for  the  promotion  of  church  life  or  for  the 
diminution  of  human  suffering,  this  only  shows  in  a  new  way 
the  spiritual  poverty  of  pious  provincialism,  which  will  not 
recognize  the  fact  that  the  disease  of  Joseph  does  not  cleave  to 
a  paper. 

British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  22d  Report,  1826,  p.  xviii. ;  SSd  Report, 
1827,  p.  xii.  Societe  BibUque  de  Paris,  9e  Rapport,  1828,  pp.  7,  31;  Allg.  Kirch- 
enzeitung,  1829,  I.  216;  Neueste  Nachrichten  aus  dem  Reiche  Gottes,  1827,  p. 
353.  Cf.  the  writings  of  Moulinie  and  E.  Reuss  cited  in  §  283;  also  S. 
Negre,  Les  apocryphes,  faisaient-ils  partie  du  canon,  etc.,  Mont.  1834.  Angli- 
can orthodoxy  thus  came  into  conflict  with  its  own  liturgy,  which  recognizes 
the  Apocrypha,  and  introduces  readings  from  it. 

The  executive  committee  of  the  Inner  Mission  in  Baden,  in  1851,  set  a 
price  of  eighty  ducats  on  the  head  of  the  Apocrypha,  that  is  to  say,  offered 
that  amount  for  the  best  writings  against  them  (see  against  this  measure 
Evang.  Kirchenzeitung,  Aug.  23d,  1851 ;  T.  Colani,  in  the  Revue  de  Thiol., 
Nov.  1851,  p.  316).  The  writings  of  P.  F.  Keerl  and  E.  Kluge  were  crowned 
as  the  most  meritorious  "witnesses,"  in  1852.  Cf.  J.  U.  Oschwald,  Die 
Apokryph.en  in  der  Bibel,  Z.  1853;  Keerl,  Das  Wort  Gottes  und  die  Apokry- 
phen,  1853,  and  numerous  tracts.  —  Against  them,  Stier,  Die  Apokryphen, 


866  HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON. 

1853;  Bleek,  in  the  Studien,  1853,  II.  ;  Evang.  Kirclienzeitung,  July,  1853, 
etc. 

350.  Thus  the  history  of  the  collection  of  tlie  sacred  writ- 
ings of  the  Christians  has  witnessed  the  appearance  and  domi- 
nation of  different  principles  in  two  main  periods,  after  that, 
during  a  preparatory  time,  the  original  lack  of  such  a  collec- 
tion and  the  gradual  rise  of  the  need  for  it  had  come  to  be 
recognized.  The  first  period  shows,  in  the  four  stages  of  the 
origin,  extension,  closing,  and  preservation  of  the  collection, 
the  domination  of  the  principle  of  tradition  and  custom  in  the 
practical  connection  of  the  facts,  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ordinate importance  assigned  to  the  accompanying  theological 
idea  of  the  canon,  which  latter  finally  became  almost  wholly 
obscured.  The  second  period  begins,  in  the  time  of  the  Re- 
formation, with  an  insistence  upon  this  dogmatic  conception, 
and  at  the  same  time  an  inclination  to  criticism  in  the  ap- 
plication of  it  to  particular  books.  After  this  principle  had 
been  carried  to  the  extreme  and  its  power  exhausted,  criticism 
became  dominant  and  has  finally  been  applied  against  the 
dogma  itself,  which  is  now  again  in  controversy.  Far  from 
having  finished  her  work,  science  seems  scarcely  to  have  done 
more  than  make  a  beginning.  The  importance  of  the  collec- 
tion for  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Church  constitutes  the  inter- 
est of  the  History  of  the  Text. 


BOOK  THIRD. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  SCRIP- 
TURES OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT. 

351.  The  original  copies  of  the  New  Testament  books, 
whether  written  by  their  authors  with  their  own  hands,  or 
dictated  to  scribes,  or,  finally,  copied  by  so-called  calhgraphers 
before  publication,  do  not  appear  to  have  remained  in  exist- 
ence long.  On  account  of  the  poor  quality  of  the  paper,  they 
must  soon  have  become  unfit  for  use  and  finally  have  been  lost, 
even  if  they  were  not  destroyed  sooner  by  violence  or  neglect. 
It  is  certain  that  no  ancient  writer  makes  mention  of  them. 

Cf.  on  the  contents  of  this  whole  book  :  A.  Kuenen,  Critices  et  hermeneutices 
II.  N.  F.  Uneamenta,  Leyd.  1858;  Tischendorf,  Article  Bibeltext  des  N.  T.,  in 
Herzog's  Encykl. 

[Articles  on  Bible  Text:  Tischendorf  and  Von  Gebhardt,  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encykl,  new  ed.,  II.  400  ff.,  trans,  and  rev.  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  for 
Schaff's  Relig.  EnajcL,  1882,  I.  268  ff.;  Westcott,  in  Smith's  Did.  Bibl.,  III. 
2112  ff.,  Am.  ed.  ;  Fr.  Gardiner,  The  Principles  of  Textual  Criticism,  in  the 
Bib.  Sac,  Apr.  1875,  reprinted,  revised,  as  an  App.  to  his  Harmony  of  the 
Four  Gospels,  Andover,  187G  and  1880  ;  Ezra  Abbot,  in  Anglo-American  Bible 
Revision,  Phila.,  2d  ed.  1879,  p.  86  ff.;  also  in  The  New  Revision  and  its 
Study,  Phila.  1881,  p.  5  ff.  ;  reprinted  in  part  in  Dr.  B.  H.  Kennedy's  Ely 
Lectures  on  the  Revised  Version  of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1882,  p.  91  ff.  —  The  Re- 
vised Version  of  1881  has  called  forth  a  large  number  of  essays  on  the  sub- 
ject in  English  and  American  periodicals.  Note  especially  the  attacks  of 
Dean  Burgon  in  Lond.  Quar.  Review,  Oct.  1881,  Jan.  and  Apr.  1882;  replies 
by  W.  Sanday,  in  Contemp.  Rev.,  Dec.  1881;  Farrar,  Coritemp.  Rev.,  Mar. 
1882  ;  by  an  anonymous  writer,  in  the  Church  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1882  ;  B.  B. 
Warfielci,  in  the  Presb.  Quar.  Rev.,  Apr.  1882  ;  by  two  members  of  the  Eng- 
lish N.  T.  Revision  Company,  in  The  Revisers  and  the  Greek  Text  of  the  JV.  T., 
Lond.  1882.] 

[Works  on  Textual  Criticism  :  J.  S.  Porter,  Principles  of  Textual  Criticism, 
Lond.  1848;  S.  Davidson,  A  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism,  Edinb.  and  Lond. 
1852,  2  vols.  (2d  vol.  on  the  N.  T.);  S.  P.  Tregelles,  An  Account  of  the 
Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  N.  T.,  with  Remarks  on  its  Revision  upon  Critical 
Principles,  Lond.  1854)  ;  by  the  same  author,  Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criti- 
cism of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1860  (a  separate  reprint  of  the  first  part  of  Vol.  IV. 
of  Home's  Introduction,  10th  ed.,  Lond.  1856;  with  Additions  and  Postscript, 
in  11th  ed.  1860,  14th  ed.  1877) ;  F.  H.  A.  Scrivener,  A  Plain  Introduction  to 
the  Criticism  of  the  N.  T.,  1861,  3d  ed.  1882;  cf.  also  his  Six  Lectures  on  the 
Text  of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1875;  C.  E.  Hammond,  Outlines  of  Textual  Criticism 
Applied  to  the  N.  T.,  Oxf.  1872,  3d  ed.  1880 ;  Edw.  C.  Mitchell,  Critical 


368  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

Handbook  to  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  and  Andover,  1880  (the  part  on  Textual  Criti- 
cism, pp.  67-143,  rev.  by  Ezra  Abbot) ;  G.  E.  Merrill,  llie  Story  of  the 
Manuscripts,  3d  ed.  Boston,  1881  (popular);  Ph.  Schaft',  A  Companion  to  the 
Greek  Testament  and  the  English  Version,  N.  Y.  1883,  chs.  ii.,  v.,  vi.  ;  and  in 
general  the  Prolegomena  to  the  critical  editions.] 

The  value  of  the  Autographa,  apxervwa.,  IhiSxeipa,  for  the  first  Christians, 
must  not  be  measured  by  the  standard  of  our  critical  needs  or  our  careful- 
ness of  records,  least  of  all  by  our  passion  for  bibliographical  curiosities. 
In  general,  while  there  was  such  a  wealth  of  the  living  word,  men  troubled 
themselves  less  about  the  written  (§§  30  if.,  284  ff.).  Decreasing  legibility 
and  the  cu'culation  of  more  complete  copies  may  also  have  caused  them  to 
be  forgotten.  The  greatest  interest  on  this  point  is  with  reference  to  the 
Pauline  Epistles  ;  cf .  Griesbach,  Hist,  textus  epp.  paulin.,  0pp.,  II.  58  ff. 

The  assistance  of  scribes  {notarii,  amanuenses,  Taxvypa4>oi),  attested  by  the 
text  itself  (Rom.  xvi.  22  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  21;  Col.  iv.  18;  2  Thess.  iii.  17;  in  a 
different  way  Gal.  vi.  11),  has  been  denied  from  prejudice  :  F.  Stosch,  De 
epp.  App.  idiographis,  Guelf.  1751,  8°  ;  J.  H.  Pries,  De  App.  salva  inspiratione 
amanuensium  opera  nsis,  Rost.  1757;  F.  W.  Roloff,  De  trihus  (.')  Pauli  nomini- 
bus  ad  Rom.  xvi.  22,  Jen.  1731;  N.  T.  Briegleb,  Tertius  scriha  Pauli,  Jen. 
1754.  If  the  epistles  were  not  dictated  they  certainly  were  copied,  before 
being  sent,  by  other  hands  than  the  writer's.  Cf.  also  §  76.  KaWiypa<poi 
were  necessary  for  authors  unacquainted  with  writing  altogether,  or  at  least 
with  the  Greek,  and  in  general  because  of  the  method  of  book-making  then 
prevalent,  for  general  legibility.     Librarii,  Correctores,  etc. 

Supposed  traces  of  autographs  m  Ignatius,  Ad  Philad.,  viii.  (cVtoTs  apx^iois, 
cf.  §  289),  and  Tertullian,  De prcescriptione  hcer.,  eh.  xxxvi.  (authenticce  literce); 
see  J.  E.  I.  Walch,  De  App.  litt.  authent.  a  Tert.  commemoratis,  Jen.  1753j 
Stosch,  De  canone  N.  T.,  p.  52  ff. ;  Griesbach,  I.  c,  p.  66;  Gabler,  Preface  to 
the  same,  p.  26,  and  all  the  Introductions. 

Fables  of  the  discovery  of  autographs  of  John  at  Ephesus  in  the  fourth 
cent'ny,  after  Chronic,  pasch.,  p.  5,  and  Petrus  Alex.,  De  paschate,  in  Stosch, 
I.  c,  p.  44;  or  in  the  foundations  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  under  Julian 
(Philostorg.,  VII.  14  ;  Niceph.  Callisti,  X.  33) ;  of  Matthew  in  the  grave  of 
Barnabas  in  Cyprus,  according  to  Theodorus  Lector,  in  the  fifth  ;  or  even 
still  extant,  as  of  Mark  at  Venice  and  Prague,  cf.  Dobrowsky,  Fragment, 
pragense  ev.  S.  Marci  vulgo  autographi,  Prag,  1778. 

Cf.  in  general  J.  F.  Mayer,  Utrum  autographa  biblica  hodie  extent,  Hamb. 
1692;  B.  G.  Clauswitz,  De  autographorum  Jactura  rei  chr.  et  innoxia  et  utili, 
Hal.  1743;  E.  L.  Rathlef,  Hist,  autographorum  apost.,  Hann.  1752  (thinks 
they  were  not  lost  before  the  time  of  Diocletian);  Knittel,  Ad  Ulfilce  fragm., 
p.  122  ff.;  Binterim,  De  lingua  orig.  N.  T.,  p.  9  ff.  [Westcott,  in  Smith's 
Diet.,  III.  2112  f.;  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  85  ff.]. 

352.  Yet  we  can  sketch  a  description  of  these  original  copies 
even  now,  partly  from  what  is  known  of  the  books  of  the  an- 
cients in  general,  partly  from  the  later  copies  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  in  the  oldest  of  which  the  art  of  book-making  is 
still  in  its  infancy.  According  to  these  the  Apostles  must 
have  written  without  spaces  between  words,  without  accents, 
without  punctuation,  and  without  division  of  the  text  into 
paragraphs.  Superscriptions  and  names  of  authors  were  also 
lacking  except  where  they  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  text. 

In  all  these  points,  therefore,  criticism  has  free  range  and  is  bound  by  no 
authorities,  but  only  by  the  rules  of  grammar  and  logic,  and  especially  by 
the  demands  of  convenience  and  custom. 


MANUSCRIPTS  —  MATERIAL  —  VARIANTS.  369 

Cf.  on  this  and  several  later  sections,  B.  de  Montfaueon,  Palixographica 
grceca,  P.  1708,  fol. ;  A.  Calmet,  Aus  iocs  fiir  Materien  die  BUcher  der  Alten 
hestanden,  und  von  den  verschiedenen  Arten  zu  schreiben,  Bibl.  Unterss.,  I.  161, 
of  the  German  translation  ;  H.  A.  Erhard,  Diplom.  Schriftkunde,  in  Ersch 
and  Gruber's  EncykL,  I.  1^9. 

[Other  works  on  Diplomatics  and  Palaeography :  Nouveau  Traite  de  Diplo- 
matique, Par.  1750-65,  6  vols.  4°;  Bast,  Commentatio  palceographica,  in  App. 
to  G.  H.  Schafer's  ed.  of  Gregorius  Corinthus,  De  Dialectis,  L.  1811;  Silves- 
tre,  Pale'ographie  Universelle,  P.  1839,  fol.  II.  (fine  fac-similes) ;  Westwood, 
Palceographia  Sacra  Pictoria,  Lond.  1843  ;  Wattenbach,  Anleitung  zur  griech. 
Palceographie,  2d  ed.  L.  1877,  4°,  and  12  plates,  fol.  ;  idem,  Schrifltafeln  zur 
Gesch.  d.  griech.  Schrift  u.  zum  Studium  d.  griech.  Pakeogr.,  B.  1876-77,  2  vols, 
fol.;  idem,  Das  Schrlftwesen  im  Mittelalter,  2d  ed.,  L.  1875,  8°;  Gardthausen, 
Griechische  Palceographie,  L.  1879,  8°.  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  pp. 
88,  93  ff.;  Westcott,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  III.  p.  2112  ff.] 

The  invention  of  marks  of  punctuation  is  older,  it  is  true,  but  their  use 
did  not  reach  beyond  the  schools  of  the  grammarians. 

353.  The  material  used  for  writing  in  common  life  was  the 
Egyptian  paper,  upon  which  the  ink  was  spread  with  a  reed 
pen.  Parchment  was  not  unknown,  but  was  too  costly  for 
ordinary  use.  The  text  was  written  in  columns,  in  a  charac- 
ter not  unlike  that  found  on  ancient  monuments,  the  so-called 
lapidary  style,  but  inclined  toward  somewhat  more  rounded 
forms.     The  written  leaves  were  rolled  together. 

For  a  description  of  the  process  of  making  paper  from  the  papyrus  (ira- 
irvpos,  Cyperus  papyrus,  L.)  see  Pliny,  Hist,  nat.,  XIII.  21-27.  Cf.  Fortia 
d'Urban,  Essai  sur  Voriqine  de  Vecriture,  P.  1832;  Krause,  Art.  Papyros,  in 
the  Hall.  EncyJd.,  III.  11. 

Technical  terms  :  x°-P'^vs,  charta  ;  fi.4\av,  atramentum  j  KaAa/*oy,  calamus  j  2 
Jn.  12  ;  3  Jn.  13.     Hence  liber,  /Si'^Aoy. 

Elsewhere  occur  also  the  wax  tablet  (^wivaKlSiov,  Lk.  i.  63)  and  parchment 
(jieii^pavai.,  2  Tim.  iv.  13). 

354.  Such  was  the  original  form  of  the  apostolic  writings. 
The  progress  of  the  art  of  writing,  and  the  various  attempts 
to  facilitate  the  reading  of  the  books,  brought  about  a  series 
of  changes  in  this  form,  some  of  which  have  had  a  permanent 
influence  upon  the  text  itself,  and  have  lasted  after  tlie  inven- 
tion of  the  art  of  printing.  More  ancient,  however,  and  at 
the  same  time  more  numerous,  more  manifold,  and  more  im- 
portant, are  those  changes  which  directly  affected  the  text  and 
its  different  essential  elements.  The  method  in  which,  in  early 
times,  copies  were  multiplied,  renders  this  phenomenon  a  per- 
fectly natural  one  ;  the  sacred  writings  but  shared  the  fate  of 
ancient  literature  in  general. 

The  history  of  the  text  of  the  N.  T.  is  treated  specially  in  the  Prolegomena 
to  the  critical  editions  of  Wetstein,  Scholz,  Tischendorf  [Wescott  and  Hort, 
1881],  etc.  Yet  their  presentation  of  the  subject  is  in  many  respects  de- 
pendent upon  a  preconceived  theory.  So  also  with  Griesbach,  Curoi  in  hist, 
textus  epp.  Pauli  {0pp.,  II.  1-135).  Cf.  J.  Croius,  Ss.  et  historicre  observa- 
tiones  in  N.  F.,  Gen.  1644,  4°;  J.  A.  Osiander,  De  originibus  varr.  lectt.  N.  T., 
2^ 


370  HISTORY   OF   THE   WRITTEN   TEXT. 

Tub.  1739  ;  J.'  Friek  (§  289),  pp.  118-185;  J.  S.  Scmler,  Vorbereitung  zur 
Hermeneutik,  III.,  IV.  ;  his  Apparatus  ad  interpr.  N.  T.,  pp.  28-81.  Popu- 
lar :  Tiscliendoi-f,  Haben  wir  den  echten  Schrifttext  der  Evo.  und  Apostel  ?  L. 
1873. 

355.  The  variations  from  the  original  text,  or  the  so-called 
vai'ious  readings,  were  liable  to  arise  as  long  as  the  text  was 
merely  copied,  and  upon  the  whole  no  variety  of  them  belongs 
exclusively  or  chiefly  to  any  particular  epoch,  or  precedes  an- 
other in  time.  This  is  true  whether  they  be  considered  as  to 
their  source,  as  due  to  accident,  carelessness,  or  design ;  or  as 
to  their  form,  as  additions,  omissions,  displacements,  or  trans- 
positions ;  or  finally  as  to  their  extent,  as  affecting  letters, 
words,  or  whole  sentences. 

Different  idea  of  a  variant,  according  as  one  takes  for  the  standard  the 
assumed  or  critically  obtained  original  text,  or  some  historically  given  one; 
e.  g.,  in  Mt.  viii.  28,  Mk.  v.  1,  Lk.  viii.  2G,  rtpaa-rivwv  and  Tep-yeff-nvwv  are  vari- 
ants with  reference  to  the  original  text,  the  latter  and  Tahap-nvwv  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Vulgate  and  witnesses  agreeing  with  it  ;  in  the  hrst  passage 
Tepa(Ty]vwv  and  Tabap7)vwv  are  variants  with  reference  to  the  received  text,  etc. 

Lectiones  varice  s.  varia?ites  j  a<paKfiaTa,  errores  y  aWouicreis,  adulter ationes. 

Origen,  In  Matth.,  XV.  (III.  671,  Ruseus):  Nuvl  5e  driKovSri  ttoWv  jfyovev  7) 
Twv  aPTiypdcpoov  Stacpopd,  f'/re  airh  paQvfxias  rtvoSv  ypa<pi(DV,  e'/re  in:})  rdX/nris  rivcSv  /u-ox- 
6r]pas  T7]s  SiopOwa^ws  rcou  ypaKpo/j-efuv,  eifre  Kal  awh  tSiv  to.  kavTois  SoKovvra  iv  rp 
Siop0aJo-ei  Trpo(TTi.6evTwv  t)  a^aipovvTuv.  (A  criticism  of  this  passage,  which  is 
certainly  not  altogether  clear,  is  attempted  by  A.  D.  Loman,  in  the  Leidner 
'  theol.  Zeitschr.,  1873,  p.  233.) 

Cf .  for  the  further  fixing  of  the  terminology,  the  articles  Integritdt  and  In- 
terpolation en,  by  E.  Reuss,  in  the  Hall.  Encyli. 

F.  A.  Knittel,  Neue  Gedanken  von  den  Schreibfehlern  in  den  HSS.  des  N. 
T.,  Bvg.  1755. 

356.  Yet  it  may  be  asserted  with  tolerable  certainty  that 
the  further  back  we  go  in  the  history  of  the  text  the  more  ar- 
bitrarily was  it  treated.  Since  originally  copies  of  the  writings 
of  the  Apostles  were  taken  only  for  private  use,  and  not  at  all 
for  histovico-dogmatic  purposes,  for  which  the  oral  teaching  in 
the  churches  was  sufficient,  but  rather  for  individual  edifica- 
tion, it  is  conceivable  that  in  this  work  one  might  neither 
strive  after  punctilious  accuracy,  nor  scruple  to  undertake  all 
sorts  of  alterations.  Nay,  if  we  consider  that  the  authors 
themselves,  or  their  amanuenses  in  dictation,  may  have  made 
mistakes,  and  that  the  former,  in  revision,  may  have  introduced 
improvements  and  additions,  the  question  comes  whether  the 
text  ever  existed  in  complete  purity  at  all,  and  in  what  sense. 

That  the  authors  may  have  offended  against  current  rules  with  reference 
to  orthography,  placing  of  the  augment,  apostrophe,  nu  movable,  etc.,  and 
that  their  copyists  (like  our  proof-readers)  may  have  corrected  these  errors, 
will  not  appear  impossible  to  any  one  with  our  present  insiglit  into  their  lin- 
guistic knowledge. 

Unhellenic  expressions  due  to  imperfect  acquaintance  with  the  correct 
usage,  in  so  far  as  they  can  be  shown  to  be  the  genuine  readings  (1  Thess. 


DESIGNED   ALTERATIONS  — FOR  IMPROVEMENT.         371 

ii.  8,  6fxeLp6fx.fvoi;  Phil.  ii.  30,  irapa3oA.€i)(ra;uei'os),may  be  reckoned  iii  this  class, 
unless  one  prefers  to  assume  an  otherwise  unknown  provincialism. 

Other  passages,  whose  genuineness  is  unquestioned,  have  excited  suspicion 
as  to  whether  they  have  been  correctly  placed  by  the  copyists  :  e.  g.,  1  Tim. 
V.  23  ;  Rom.  xvi.  25-27  (and  many  in  the  latter  Epistle  according  to  A. 
Gratz,  Interpolationen  im  B.  an  die  Romer,  EUw.  1814,  p.  32  fE.).  Cf.  also 
§  111.     Laurent,  Neutest.  Studien,  p.  31  S. 

However  they  may  have  come  into  existence,  variants  meet  us  as  soon  as 
quotations  from  the  apostolic  writings  occur  at  all  in  later  authors  ;  for  we 
may  infer  from  the  concurrent  testimony  of  still  extant  manuscripts  that  we 
have  not  here  to  do  with  mere  errors  of  memory.  So  both  in  Catholic  and 
heretical  writers  (§§  287  if.,  508).  Especially  instructive  in  this  connection 
are  the  discussions  with  Marcion  (§  24G).  Cf.  also  §  3G2.  Even  in  Irenfeus' 
time  (Adv.  Hccr.,  V.  10)  attention  was  paid  to  better  manuscripts  (crTvov^ala 
Kol  apxcua  avriypacpay. 

Yet  not  all  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  were  affected  to  the  same  extent  by 
such  changes.  The  writings  of  John  (Gospel  and  Epistle)  have  unquestion- 
ably suffered  least,  the  Synoptic  Gospels  more  than  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
but  Luke  somewhat  less  than  the  other  two.  The  Catholic  Epistles,  but 
especially  the  Acts  and  the  Apocalypse,  have  been  corrupted  most.  The 
causes  of  these  phenomena  have  doubtless  been  altogether  different  in  each 
particular  case.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  more  frequent  use  furnished 
more  frequent  occasion  for  alterations.  They  appear  in  the  Synoptists  more 
often  as  conformations,  in  the  Acts  as  free  editing  and  annotation.  Among 
the  Epistles,  the  higher  importance  which  was  ascribed  to  those  of  Paul  may 
have  given  them  an  additional  protection.  The  Apocalypse,  which  from  the 
third  century  on  fell  into  discredit  in  the  theological  world,  was  certainly 
studied  the  more  eagerly  in  unlearned  circles,  as  often  happened  afterward, 
and  in  consequence  was  circulated  in  more  and  more  corrujjt  copies. 

857.  In  the  most  ancient  period,  as  soon,  that  is,  as  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Apostles  began  to  be  a  subject  of  scholarly  occupa- 
tion, or  at  lettst  were  copied  by  members  of  the  profession,  the 
changes  which  crept  into  the  text  were  doubtless,  for  the  most 
part,  such  as  were  designed  for  its  improvement.  The  inten- 
tion was,  that  is,  to  transform  it,  partly  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  of  language,  syntax,  and  euphony,  where  an  unclassic 
style  offended  the  ear  of  the  scholar ;  partly  in  the  interest 
of  greater  clearness,  where  a  harsh  expression  or  a  foreign 
idiom  occurred ;  partly  also  in  the  interest  of  a  supposed  his- 
toric truth  which  seemed  not  to  consist  with  the  text  as  it 
stood. 

Aiopd^aeis,  in  Origen,  I.  c,  to  whom,  moreover,  we  owe  wholly  unnecessary 
variants,  e.  g.,  Jn.  i.  28,  Brida^apS.  For  the  complaint  of  Dion,  of  Corinth  of 
such  trifling  (paStovyricrat),  see  §  294.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  IV.  29,  of  Tatian  :  tov 
5e  a,Tro<Tr6\ou  cpaal  ToAfjirjcral  Tivas  avrhv  fieraippdcTat  <pcci/d,^,  iis  i-n-iSiopOoifji.evei'  avr'bv 
t))v  TTjs  (ppdaeoos  avi'Ta^ii'.  Anxiety  of  Irenseus  for  the  fate  of  his  own  writings 
(in  Euseb.,  V.  20).  IIow  correctly  many  Church  Fathers  judged  of  the  lin- 
guistic peculiarities  of  the  N.  T.,  see  in  Wetstein,  Libelli  crit.,  p.  48  ff. 
'A5jrfp0a>Ta  avriypacpa,  in  Epiphan.,  Ancor.,  ch.  xxxi.,  are  therefore  genuine 
copies.  Yet  this  word  Stopdovv  had  elsewhere  another  natural  sense.  §  365, 
cf.  also  §  362. 

Examples  of  grammatical  corrections  :  Mk.  ii.  15  :  KaraKuaeai  avrhv  or  Kara- 
KeifjLevuv  avrcov  instead  of  iv  TqS  /car. ;   vii.   17  :  rec.   irepl  ti)s  7rapa/3oAf;s  for  tiju 


372  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

Trap. ;  Mt.  viii.  28  :  iKQ6vTos  avrov  for  iXdSfri ;  v.  28  :  rec.  eTridvfXTidat  avrrjs  for 
aiiTT)"',  XV.  32:  rec.  vfj-epas  rpeTy  for  ijn^pai ;  Lk.  viii.  33  :  rec.  dariXQiv  instead  of 
the  plural,  cf.  vs.  31 ;  Rev.  ii.  20  :  rec.  r7)v  Keyovaav  instead  of  the  nominative  ; 
Heb.  iv.  15  :  TreTreipa/xevov  or  iTenfipaa-fji.evoi' ;  1  Cor.  X.  24  :  sKaffTos  added ; 
Rom.  ii.  17,  <5e  for  d  Se  .  .  .  (yet  see  §  354). 

The  frequent  change  of  the  Greek  orthography  is  also  to  be  remembered 
in  this  connection  ;  yet  respecting  this  views  prevail  among  the  most  recent 
critics  (see  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena  to  edition  VII.  p.  43  ff.),  which  from 
lack  of  contemporaneous  documents  do  not  appear  to  be  above  all  doubt  ;  at 
least  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  later  copyists  followed  local  and  tem- 
poral customs  in  this  matter  than  that  Luke  and  Paul  used  Egyptian  provin- 
cial forms. 

Exegetical  explanations  :  Lk.  i.  64  :  /col  ri  ■y\cSff(ra  avrov,  add  ^i-qpdpwQr)  or 
ixidt] ;  Mt.  xii.  30  :  pijM"  T^ov-qphv  instead  of  a.py6p ;  vii.  27  :  Trpoa-fppTj^av  or  npoa- 
€Kpov<ray  or  Trpocreireao}/ ;  vi.  1  :  eAerjfxocrvi'riv  for  StKaiocrvvrfv ;  Heb.  iv.  2  :  crvy- 
KsKpa/xdvos  or  -011$ ;  Lk.  v.  14  :  'Iva  els  fxapr.  rj  v/mv  tovto  ;  2  Cor.  v.  3  :  eKSvcrdixevoi 
for  ifdvff.  ;  Gal.  iii.  1  completed  from  v.  7  ;  Lk.  ix.  56  as  an  explanation  of 
the  likewise  suspicious  vs.  55  ;  Ja.  iii.  12  rec.  ;  Mt.  xxv.  16,  iKep5r)(r€P  for 
eVoirjo-ec ;  Philem.  12,  irpodXa^ov  added. —  Exegetical  misimderstandings :  Heb. 
X.  2  :  eVel  &v ;  xi.  4  :  KaXuTai ;  Ja.  ii.  18  :  e/c  for  x'>'P's-  •  •  • 

Historical  criticism  :  Mt.  xxvii.  9  :  Zaxapiov ;  vs.  44  wholly  omitted  ;  Mk. 
ii.  26  :  in]  'A(3iadap  omitted  or  Abimelech  ;  Jn.  viii.  57  :  reacrapaKovra ;  vii.  8  : 
ovTTco  instead  of  ovk  ;  Mt.  i.  11,  completion  of  the  series  of  names  ;  x.  2  :  6 
iTTiKA-^dels  ©aSSoios  added  ;  cf.  §  170  ;  Acts  xiii.  33  :  Sevrepcp ;  Lk.  v.  7  :  Ttapd 
Tt  added  ;  Mk.  i.  2  :  eV  rols  ■n-po(priTa7s ;  Mt.  xxiv.  38  :  nph  added. 

Archseological  learning  :  Mt.  xxv.  1  :  koI  ttjs  fi^^^rjs  added. 

Alteration  in  accordance  with  ecclesiastical  or  biblical  usage  :  Acts  xx. 
28  :  eKKKrioia  deov  or  Kvpiov ;  xvi.  7  :  'Ii7(roC  omitted  ;  Rom.  i.  16  :  Xpiarov 
added. 

Freaks  of  fancy  :  Mk.  iii.  31  :  v  fj.-fiTr]p  koI  ol  aS^Acpol  instead  of  the  reverse 
order  ;  Gal.  ii.  9,  rieVpos  koI  'Ia/ca)/8os,  the  same.  Perhaps,  however,  only 
blunders.     Jn.  vi.  11,  introduction  of  the  disciples. 

358.  Elsewhere,  and  especially  in  the  historical  books,  the 
design  was  enrichment.  On  the  one  hand  the  greater  richness 
of  tradition  invited  to  the  supplementing  of  the  gospel  history 
as  a  whole,  and  on  the  other  the  comparison  of  written  Gospels 
so  similar  to  one  another  led  to  the  attempt  to  bring  them  yet 
nearer  together  in  expression  as  well  as  in  the  substance  of  the 
narrative  itself.  Related  to  these  alterations  are  those  whose 
design  was  to  bring  about  a  more  accurate  agreement  between 
a  passage  and  an  Old  Testament  text  quoted  in  it,  when  the 
latter  was  only  incompletely  or  otherwise  incorrectly  recalled 
from  memory. 

Cf.  in  general  §  238  fP.  To  the  examples  there  adduced  of  traditional 
enrichment  may  be  added,  among  others,  Mt.  v.  10  :  MaKopioi  oi  heStuy/ufvoi 
CLTrh  TTJs  SiKaiOffiivri?  on  avrol  iaovrat  Tf\etoi'  fj-aKapioi  ol  SeSioi-y/xeVoi  iv^K^p  i/xov  '6ti 
f^ova-i  rSnop  oirov  ov  Sioox6-ri(TovTai,  which  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  IV.  490,  calls 
fxeraTtOepai  rh  ivayyeAiov ;  Mt.  X.  8  :  yfKpovs  iyelpere  added  ;  cf.  xi.  5  ;  Jn.  viii. 
59  :  SieXOuov  5ia  /xeaov  avrSiv  k.  t.  X.  added  as  a  miracle  (Lk.  iv.  30). 

Examples  of  harmonistic  conformation  :  Mt.  xviii.  11  came  from  Lk.  xix. 
10  ;  Mt.  xxi.  44  from  Lk.  xx.  18  ;  Lk.  vii.  10  is  in  many  witnesses  repeated 
after  Mt.  viii.  13  ;  Lk.  iv.  8  adds  i'7ra76  ^iricrw  jxov  aarava  from  Mt.  iv.  10  ; 
after  Luke  xi.  15  in  some  codices  stands  Mk.  iii.  23  ;  after  Lk.  v.  14  Cod. 


DESIGNED  ALTEEATIONS  -  GLOSSES.         373 

D  inserts  Mk.  i.  45  ;  after  Mt.  xxvii.  49  not  a  few,  even  ancient,  witnesses 
have  the  note  from  Jn.  xix.  34.  Lk.  xi.  2  ff.  is  supplemented  from  Mt.  vi. 
9  ff.  ;  of.  Mt.  xix.  17  and  parallels  ;  Mk.  xiv.  22  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  24  ;  Lk.  xvii. 
36  ;  xxii.  47  ;  cf.  Jerome,  Prcef.  in  Evv.  ad  Damas. :  Magnus  in  nostris  codd. 
error  inolevit  dum,  quod  in  eadem  re  alius  evangelista  plus  dixit,  in  alio  quia 
minus  putaverint  addiderunt  •  vel  dum  eundem  sensum  alius  aliter  expressit,  ille 
qui  unum  e  quatuor  primum  legerat  ad  ejus  exemplar  ceteros  quoque  existimaverit 
emendandos  j  wide  accidit  ut  apud  nos  mixta  sinl  omnia  et  in  Marco  plura  Lucie 
aique  Mattkcei,  rursus  in  Matthceo  plura  Joannis  et  Marci  .  .  .  inveniantur. 

Similar  phenomena  in  the  Acts  :  ch.  viii.  37  is  an  addition  ;  ix.  5,  6  and 
xxii.  8  are  supplemented  from  xxvi.  14. 

Examples  of  completed  or  corrected  quotations  are  furnished  both  by  edi- 
tions and  manuscripts.  Mt.  xii.  20  ;  xv.  8  ;  Lk.  iv.  18,  19  ;  Kom.  iv.  18  ; 
ix.  28  ;  xiii.  9 ;  Hebr.  ii.  7  ;  xii.  20.  Mt.  xxvii.  35  is  wholly  interpolated 
from  Jn.  xix.  24. 

359.  Many  readers,  though  refraining  from  so  bold  altera- 
tions in  the  text  itself,  yet  committed  the  results  of  their  stud- 
ies, whether  exegetical  or  critical,  to  the  mai'gin  of  their  copies. 
For  the  novelty  and  peculiarity  of  the  religious  language  of 
the  Apostles  continually  aroused  the  more  classically  educated 
reader  to  seek  and  to  give  elucidations,  a  proceeding  which 
stood  connected  in  many  ways  with  the  early  beginning  of  ex- 
egetical tradition ;  and  the  most  incidental  comparison  of  sev- 
eral manuscripts  brought  to  his  knowledge  variations  in  the 
text  which  he  might  write  down.  But  this  only  deferred  its 
further  alteration.  For  sooner  or  later,  in  a  new  copy,  these 
marginal  notes  came  into  the  text  itself  as  glosses,  either  with 
or  without  the  original  reading. 

Mk.  vii.  5  :  aviirrois  for  koivuTs  ;  Rom.  viii.  28  :  (rwepye?,  adds  6  BfSs ;  2 
Cor.  viii.  4  :  addition  at  the  end  :  Se|acr0a:  v/xas;  Mk.  vii.  2  :  ifiefxipai/To 
added  ;  Mt.  x.  12  adds  \eyovres-  elpi]vrt  k.  t.  A. ;  Acts  vii.  48  adds  mols ;  Gal. 
iii.  1  ;  Rom.  viii.  1  ;  1  Thess.  v.  8,  24  ;  1  Cor.  v.  1.  Cf.  above,  §  357,  the 
examples  of  exegetical  explanation. 

Historical  notes  :  Mk.  vii.  8  ;  Jn.  vi.  22  :  Acts  i.  5  adds  koI  h  fj-eWere 
Aufi^dv^tv  tons  TTjs  irfPTTiKoa-Tris ;  VS.  12  adds  ;  rocovTou  vu  rb  ^idarqixa  ocrov  Svua- 
rhv  'louSa7ou  irepnraTrjrTat  iv  aa^^drw  ;  numerous  additions  in  the  Acts  are  pre- 
served particularly  in  the  Latin  version  ;  also  in  Greek  manuscripts  and 
editions  (e.  g.  viii.  37  ;  x.  6  ;  xvii.  21  ;  xi.  21  ;  xiv.  6,  10  ;  xv.  29,  34  ;  xxii. 
12  ;  xxiii.  25  ;  xxiv.  G,  18  ;  xxviii.  29,  etc.).  —  To  Jn.  vi.  56  Cod.  D  adds  : 
KaGios  iv  ifxol  6  irar^p  Kayib  iv  t$  irarpi.  In  the  same  manuscript  a  longer 
addition  which  appears  as  a  gloss  to  vs.  53. 

In  the  interest  of  logical  completeness  or  sharpness  :  Rom.  xi.  6  :  addi- 
tion :  el  56  e'l  epywv,  ovKiTt  iffrl  x"P's  K.  r.  A. ;  Lk.  ix.  55,  the  words  of  Jesus,  at 
least  the  second  half  ;  cf.  §  357. 

Again,  a  genuine  portion  of  the  text  might  be  inserted  at  the  wrong  place, 
having  been  accidentally  forgotten  in  copying,  and  written  afterward  in  the 
margin.  So  the  probable  transposition  of  the  verses  Phil.  i.  16  and  17. 
After  1  Cor.  x.  28,  vs.  26  is  repeated.  In  the  received  text  of  Mt.  xxiii.  13, 
14,  conformation  and  transposition  from  the  margin  are  combined. 

Early  exegetical  tradition  :  Iren.  IV.  32  :  Scripturas  diligenter  legere  apud 
eos  qui  in  ecclesia  sunt  preshyteri  apud  quos  est  apostolica  doctrina.  Cf.  ch. 
xxvi. 

On  glosses  see  Jerome,  Ad  Suniam  et  Fretelam,  III.  Francof.  p.  58  : 


374  HISTORY   OF   THE   WRITTEN   TEXT. 

Miror  quomodo  e  latere  annotationem  nostram  nescio  quis  temerarius  scrihendam 
in  corpore  putaverit  quam  nos  pro  eruditione  legends  scripsimus.  Page  59  :  Si 
quid  pro  studio  ex  latere  additum  est,  non  debet  poni  in  corpore.  J.  cle  Hase, 
De  glossematis  N.  T.  (Bihl.  Brem.,  I.  087  if.)  ;  Doderlein's  Bibl,  II.  781  ; 
Corrodi,  Beltrdge,  V.  1  ;  C.  C.  Tittmanii,  De  glossis  N.  T.  cestimandis  et  ju- 
dicandis,  Witt.  1782  ;  E.  Wassenbergh,  De  glossis  N.  T.  (in  Valckeiiarius, 
Scholia,  I) ;  F.  A.  Bornemaim,  De  glossematis  N.  T.  caute  dijudicandis  (in  his 
Scholia  ad  Luc.)  ;  E.  Reuss,  Art.  Glossen  in  Herzog's  Encykl. ;  L.  Lcblois, 
Des  additions  leqendaires,  dogmatiques,  et  liturgiques  faites  an  texte  primitif  du 
N.  T.,  Par.  1869. 

The  Hebrew  text  of  the  O.  T.  in  certain  parts,  but  especially  the  Greek 
text  of  the  LXX.,  is  more  distorted  by  glosses  than  that  of  the  N.  T. 

360.  A  pax'ticular  class  of  alterations  by  design  would  be 
those  which  might  be  undertaken  to  make  the  original  text 
conform  to  a  cm-rent  version  which  had  attained  ecclesiasti- 
cal authority.  The  more  not  only  the  uneducated  readers  of 
the  Bible,  but  also  the  more  learned  priests,  became  accustomed 
to  this  version,  the  more  naturally  must  any  variation  discov- 
ered have  worked  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  original  text.  If 
it  be  remembered,  moreover,  that  original  text  and  version  were 
often  written  together  in  parallel  columns  or  otherwise,  it  is 
evident  how  near  might  lie  the  temptation  to  such  liberties. 
That  single  examples  of  such  alterations  can  be  pointed  out  in 
Western  manuscripts  cannot  be  denied,  but  for  suspecting  them 
as  a  whole,  as  was  formerly  done  by  many  critics,  there  seems 
to  be  no  ground. 

The  Codices  latinizantes  were  distinctly  arraigned,  after  R.  Simon,  Hist, 
du  texte,  ch.  30  flf.,  by  C.  B.  Michaelis,  De  variis  lectt.  N.  T.,  §  80  if.,  and 
Wetstein.  They  were  defended,  in  particular,  by  Mill,  Semler,  and  Gries- 
bach,  in  various  passages  of  their  already  cited  works,  and  by  Eichhorn, 
Einl.,  V.  235  fP. 

In  the  West  and  in  the  Latin  Church,  where  this  operation  must  have 
been  undertaken,  there  can  scarcely  be  assumed,  at  any  time  or  in  any 
place,  sufficient  linguistic  knowledge,  or  even  sufficient  interest,  to  carry  it 
through  as  a  whole.  (Moreover,  the  force  of  most  of  the  examples  adduced 
is  taken  away  by  the  fact  that  the  suspicious  readings  are  likewise  found  in 
distant  and  ancient  oriental  witnesses.)  Only  at  a  very  late  period  did  both 
these  things  exist,  and  even  then  were  only  able  to  produce  isolated  pieces  of 
audacity,  among  which  the  most  famous  is  the  well-known  verse  1  Jn.  v.  7, 
springing  from  the  Vulgate  (here  itself  interjjolated),  over  Avhich  for  cen- 
turies there  has  been  so  "much  ado  about  nothing."  (R.  Simon,  Texte,  ch, 
18  ;  Liiderwald,  Ueber  1  Jn.  v.  y,  1767  ;  Semler,  Dogmat.  Beweisstellen,  Pt. 
I.;  F.  A.  Knittel,  Neue  Kritiken,  1785;  Hezel's  Schriftforscher,  Pt.  II.; 
Alter,  in  the  Repert.,  V.,  VIII.  ;  H.  Ware,  Two  Letters  on  the  Genuineness,  etc. 
Bost.  1820  ;  C.  E.  Scharling,  Copenh.  1861,  and  many  earlier  monographs. 
See  in  general  Rosenmiiller,  Handb.  d.  Lit.,  II.  246.)  Perhaps  also  flpov,  Mt. 
ii.  11,  instead  of  elSov  ;  Rom.  i.  32,  after  eTiyvovTes  the  addition  ovk  evo-qvav 
(non  intellexerunt,  Vulg.),  or  a  similar  word. 

It  is  something  wholly  different  and  altogether  innocent  when  in  Cod.  D, 
Mt.  iii.  16,  Mk.  i.  26,  Trvevfia  (spiritus)  is  treated  as  masculine,  or  elsewhere 
Latin  forms  appear,  as  in  Mt.  x.  5,  ^afxapiTavciv,  etc. 

In  general,  the  reverse  case,  tlie  conformation  of  the  Latin  to  the  Greek, 
is  much  more  frequent.     (§  482). 


DESIGNED  ALTERATIONS  —  DOGMATIC.  375 

For  noteworthy  examples  of  how  the  long  printed  Greek  text  could  still 
be  altered  to  agree  with  Luther's  version  or  the  Vulgate,  see  below,  §§  404, 
405. 

361.  Yet  more  dangerous  to  the  text  might  have  been  the 
fact  that  in  the  earliest  times  it  was  not  so  much  the  Scripture 
as  the  apostolic  tradition,  which  was  more  generally  known 
and  current,  that  usually  decided  in  matters  of  faith.  One 
might  easily,  in  case  of  an  actual  or  supposed  contradiction  be- 
tween the  two  authorities,  hit  upon  the  thought  of  removing  it 
by  altering  the  Scripture  in  accordance  with  the  accepted  rule 
of  faith.  In  fact  evidence  is  not  lacking  that  such  attempts 
were  made.  Yet  the  still  extant  examples  are  to  be  character- 
ized rather  as  exegetical  guards  erected  by  an  anxious  faith 
against  heretical  abuse  of  certain  passages,  than  as  proper  dog- 
matic corruptions. 

Mt.  i.  18,  yevvy](ns  or  y4veffis ;  ibid.,  irplu  fj  irvveXQeiv  avrohs  omitted  ;  vs.  25 
trpccrSTOKov  omitted ;  Lk.  ii.  33,  'lcoffi]<p  for  6  Trarrjp ;  all  of  which  bear  upon 
possible  Ebionitic  errors,  or  are  intended  to  do  away  with  all  doubt  respect- 
ing the  virginity  of  the  mother  of  Christ. 

The  following  are  mtended  to  guard  against  different  dogmatic  miscon- 
ceptions and  objections :  Mk.  vii.  13,  rf}  irapaSoa-ei,  rf}  ;uaip5  added  ;  Jn.  vii.  39, 
oijiraj  ^v  iri/evfia  aytov,  iir'  avTols  or  some  other  phrase  added  ;  Mk.  xiii.  32, 
oiiSe  6  vihs  omitted  ;  1  Tim.  i.  17,  ix6va}  dea;,  (To<pcf  added  ;  Lk.  xix.  41  and 
xxii.  43,  44  omitted,  and,  as  Epiph.,  Ancor.,  31,  expressly  observes,  by  the  or- 
thodox ;  1  Cor.  ix.  20,  ^iM  &iv  avrhs  inrh  vS/xou  omitted. 

In  defense  of  apostolic  honor  and  dignity  :  1  Cor.  xv.  10,  ovk  iyw  Se,  /xSvos 
added  ;  Mt.  v.  11,  \!/evS6fxevot  added.  Or  prophetic  :  Jn.  x.  8,  ^ph  e/xov  omit- 
ted.    Perhaps  also  Mt.  viii.  31,  iTriTpe\poi',  etc.,  for  airSa-reiAov. 

1  Cor.  vii.  3,  ocpeiXo/xevr)  fiivoia  for  ocpeiATj,  is  a  euphemism,  uidess  suggested 
by  the  ascetic  spirit. 

To  conceal  a  divergence  in  moral  principles  :  Mt.  v.  22,  elKrj  omitted  or 
inserted  ;  vs.  32,  the  last  clause  omitted. 

Several  of  these  corrections  are  properly  exegetical  opinions  and  almost 
belong  in  the  category  of  §  357.  Examples  may  also  be  derived  from  the 
notes  to  the  next  section  of  how,  even  in  the  copies  of  the  Catholics,  critically 
untenable  but  dogmatically  useful  readings  were  to  be  found.  Schulthess, 
Si/mbb.  ad  intern,  crit.  librorum  canon.  (1833),  II.  1  &.,  brings  a  formal  accu- 
sation of  corruption  against  the  orthodox.  Cf.  his  Theol.  Nachr.,  1829,  II. 
287. 

362.  But  frequent  mention  is  also  made  in  the  ancient  wri- 
ters of  actual  corruptions,  perpetrated  in  dogmatic  and  polemic 
interests.  At  a  time  when  the  apostolic  writings  had  become 
the  supreme  rule  in  matters  of  faith,  vrhen  consequently  the 
honor  accorded  them  must  have  been  the  surest  protection 
against  such  falsification,  both  parties.  Catholics  and  heretics, 
reproached  each  other  with  the  greatest  bitterness  for  this  kind 
of  deception.  Granting  this  reproach  to  be  well-founded,  it 
surely  could  have  affected  but  a  very  few  copies,  which  were 
quickly  and  easily  discarded  ;  but  the  examples  adduced  by 
tlie  Church  Fathers  (for  we  do  not  possess  the   writings   of 


376  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

their  opponents)  depend  mostly  on  exegetical  misconceptions, 
and  reveal  only  the  ignorance  of  the  accusers,  here  and  there 
perhaps  even  the  unfairness  of  the  accusation. 

The  very  passionateness  of  these  accusations,  their  apparent  attempt  to 
make  their  impression  by  invective  rather  than  by  facts,  excites  a  prejudice 
against  them  which  is  not  clone  away  by  the  coutemptibleness  of  the  charges. 
Thus  the  Valentinians  are  attacked  by  Irenseus  (IV.  6)  for  a  transposition 
of  the  clauses  in  Mt.  xi.  27  which  occurs  also  in  Catholic  Fathers  ;  by  Tertul- 
lian  {De  came  Chr.,  ch.  19)  for  changing  the  singular  in  Jn.  i.  13  into  the 
plural,  which  is  alone  genuine.  Ambrose  (^De  fide,  V.  7)  charges  the  Arians 
with  having  foisted  into  Mk.  xiii.  32  the  words  ouSe  b  vi6s,  which  are  un- 
doubtedly genuine  ;  also  (De  Spir.  S.,  III.),  with  the  omission  in  Jn.  iii.  6  of 
the  addition  of  the  Old  Latin  version  :  quoniam  Deus  spiritus  est.  Nestorius 
was  taken  to  task  for  a  variant  in  1  Jn.  iv.  3  which  his  opponent  Cyril  also 
has  ;  cf.  in  general  Griesbach,  0pp.,  II.  114  ff.  ;  Schmidt,  Einl.,  II.  35  If.  ; 
Eichhorn,  V.  120  if.  ;  Trechsel,  Kanon  und  Kritik  der  Manichder,  p.  91  fl. 
[Westcott,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  III.  2113  f.  ;  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test., 
p.  173  f.] 

Of  the  Artemonites  Eusebius  relates  {H.  E.,  V.  28)  from  older  sources  : 
Tats  diiais  ypacpais  a,<p6^cos  ene0a\ov  ras  x^^P"'-^  Xiyoi/Tis  ahras  SiwpdioK^vai,  so  that, 
indeed,  the  copies  of  Asclepiodotus,  Theodotus,  Apollonides,  Hermophilus, 
were  at  variance  among  themselves.  But  of  what  kind  this  variation  was, 
or  wherein  the  SiSpdwais  consisted,  we  know  nothing,  and  the  confident  assur- 
ance of  the  accuser  that  one  need  only  compare  these  copies,  requires  the  as- 
sumption of  a  previous  critical  exammation  on  his  part  which,  probably,  no 
one  will  believe. 

These  accusations  are  directed  most  frequently  and  vehemently  by  Irenseus, 
I.  27,  but  especially  by  TertuUian,  Adv.  Marc,  V.,  cf.  §  246,  and  Epiphanius, 
Hcer.,  42,  against  Marcion,  of  whose  Gospel  we  have  spoken  above.  His  sins 
against  the  Epistles,  according  to  these  witnesses,  are  in  part  of  similar  char- 
acter to  those  above  (e.  g.,  in  Gal.  ii.  5  he  read  correctly  oh  oiiSe,  which  liis 
opponent  omitted  ;  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4  he  correctly  construed  6  Qehs  tov  alavos 
TovTov  together,  which  TertuUian  separated  by  a  comma  ;  in  1  Thess.  ii.  15 
he  had,  with  several  of  our  manuscripts,  tou?  iSiovs  TrpocprjTas,  etc.),  and  in 
part  of  no  dogmatic  importance  whatever,  in  fact  wholly  accidental  variants 
or  clerical  errors  (e.  g.,  in  1  Cor.  x.  19  Up6dvTov  instead  of  f'iBwKov ;  in  Eph. 
ii.  15  aiiTov  wanting  after  aapKi ;  v.  31,  irphs  tV  ywalKa  omitted,  etc.),  so  that 
even  in  cases  where  the  appearance  is  really  against  Marcion,  and  where  we 
should  now  by  no  means  be  able  to  undertake  his  defense,  the  accusation  is 
highly  suspicious,  as  in  the  case  of  the  omission  of  koI  TTpo<pT)Toov  in  Eph.  ii.  20, 
of  Col.  i.  15,  16,  of  'A5a^  and  oLvOpooiros  in  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  and  several  similar 
cases.  Yet  it  is  to  be  assumed  frou:  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  accusa- 
tion of  willful  alteration  was  not  fabricated  outright.  Two  points,  however, 
should  not  be  left  unnoticed,  first,  that  the  conclusions  which  have  been  dra\vn 
from  these  declamations  (Halm,  Ev.  Marc.,  §  246)  rest  in  part  upon  exegeti- 
cal misunderstandings,  and  that  nothing  is  less  certain  than  that  he  exjinnged 
from  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans  all  the  portions  passed  over 
by  his  accusers  in  silence  (yet  see,  e.  g.,  Tert.,  V.  14:  Salin  et  hie  amplissimum 
abruptum  intercisce  Scripturce,  etc.,  according  to  which  nothing  would  remain 
between  Rom.  viii.  11  and  xi.  33  but  x.  1-4)  ;  and,  second,  that  Marcion's 
work  of  sifting,  if  it  were  such  as  represented,  must  have  been  a  rather  in- 
consistent piece  of  patchwork,  and  consequently  have  completely  failed  of 
its  purpose.  Cf.  J.  F.  C.  Loffler,  Marcionem  Pauli  epp.  .  .  .  adidlerasse.  duhi- 
tatur,  Traj.  ad  V.  1788  ;  J.  F.  Schelling,  De  Marcione  paul.  epp.  emendatore, 
Tub.  1795  ;  Ritschl,  Das  Ev.  Marcions,  p.  151  ff.  ;  see  also  Mill,  Prolegg., 
§  289  ff.     Most  thorough  of  all,  Hilgeufeld,  in  Niedner's  Zeitschr.,  1855, 


LITURGICAL  ADDITIONS.  377 

III.  ;  he  admits  alterations  and  omissions,  but  in  part  rather  upon  the  ground 
of  inference  than  of  positive  testimony. 

Inasmuch  as  Epiphanius  complains  of  much  more  numerous  corruptions  of 
the  Epistles  than  TertuUian,  it  might  be  assumed  that  Marcion's  pupils  con- 
tinued these  methods. 

The  corruption  of  the  Gospels  by  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  related  by  Vic- 
tor Tumiunensis  in  Chron.  {ad  ann.  506),  is  based  upon  a  laughable  misap- 
prehension (cf.  C.  M.  Pfatf,  De  evv.  sub  Anastasio  imp.  non  corruptis,  Tiib. 
1717  ;  Stosch,  De  canone  JV.  T.,  p.  298  ff.),  and  is  inadmissible  even  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  related  by  Liberatus  Diaconus,  Breviar.  (in  Galland.  XII. 
152),  that  the  Patriarch  Macedonius  was  deposed  because  he  corrupted  the 
Gospels  (especially  1  Tim.  iii.  10).     Mill,  Prolegg.,  1013  ff. 

Similar  accusations  by  the  Latins,  who  clung  to  their  bad  translation, 
against  the  Greeks,  and  by  the  Fathers  who  were  accustomed  to  the  LXX. 
against  the  Jews. 

Moreover,  such  corruption  would  only  have  been  possible  in  a  complete 
dogmatic  revision  of  all  the  apostolic  writings,  and  the  accusations  refer  only 
to  isolated  passages.  The  same  is  true  of  what  may  be  laid  to  the  charge  of 
a  naive  orthodoxy.  Two  codices  insert  in  1  Cor.  viii.  6  koX  %v  irvevixa  ayiov  iv  ^ 
ra  tzoLvra.  koX  rifieis  ev  avr^.     On  1  Jn.  v.  7  see  §  360. 

363.  Finally,  even  the  public  use  of  the  apostolic  writings, 
otherwise  so  favorable  to  the  preservation  of  the  text,  became 
the  occasion  of  a  new  kind  of  corruption.  The  practice  of 
reading  particular  portions  in  public  and  of  writing  these  in  a 
separate  collection  on  this  account  led  to  the  custom  of  append- 
ing all  kinds  of  liturgical  additions  in  order  to  make  them  bet- 
ter fitted  for  the  purpose.  Especially,  since  most  of  the  pas- 
sages were  taken  out  of  their  connection,  they  had  to  be 
supplied  with  suitable  introductory  words,  and  at  the  close 
appear  all  sorts  of  formulas  used  in  divine  worship.  These 
additions  then  found  their  way  into  the  more  complete  copies. 

Beginnings  :  Lk.  ii.  41,  'Ictf(r^<J>  koI  Mapla  for  ol  yovus  avrov ;  vii.  31,  the  re- 
ceptus  adds  eJire  8e  6  Kvpios.  Similarly,  Jn.  xiv.  1  ;  Acts  iii.  11:  rov  laBevros 
Xo\ov  for  avTov,  etc.  Numerous  examples  are  collected  by  Mill,  Prolegg., 
1055. 

Of  different  kind  :  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Mt.  vi.  13  :  the 
completion  of  the  sacramental  words,  1  Cor.  xi.  24  ;  and  especially  the  fre- 
quent 'AfjL^V. 

364.  Other  corruptions,  which  are  evidently  accidental  and 
not  intentional,  are  to  be  attributed  rather  to  the  carelessness 
of  the  copyists  than  to  their  often  so  ill-applied  learning.  In 
this  class  belong  various  errors  of  the  eye,  ear,  memory,  and 
judgment.  In  reading,  similar  letters,  syllables,  or  words  were 
interchanged,  lines  with  similar  beginning  or  end  were  over- 
looked ;  in  dictation,  things  of  similar  sound  were  wrongly 
apprehended;  in  copying  hastily,  equivalent  idioms  and  phrases 
were  exchanged,  or  larger  or  smaller  portions  of  sentences 
transposed,  abbreviations  wrongly  resolved,  and  other  similar, 
easily  conceivable  blunders  made.  This  cause  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  text,  if  it  has  not  been  the  greatest,  has  at  least 
been  longest  in  OTifratinn. 


878  HISTORY   OF   THE   WRITTEN   TEXT. 

Errors  of  the  eye  :  Rom.  xii.  13  :  ixv^iais  for  xpf'^'S ;  Mt.  xix.  19  :  is  eaw- 
rhv  for  ois  aeavrSv ;  Lk.  vii.  21  :  txap'caTO  ^Aeireti/  or  ix-  '''^  /SAeVeji/ ;  ix.  49  : 
fK^dWovra  5ai.fJi.6via  or  eK/3.  to,  SaLix6i'ia ;  Acts  X.  3G  :  rhv  Koyov  aTreareiKe  for  t. 
\oy.  hv  airecTT. ;  Mt.  xi.  23  :  KaTrepi/aoi/^  /xJ;  for  KaTr.  rj  ;  1  Tliess.  ii.  7  :  iyeviidrj- 
/jLev  vrjiTiot  for  eyej/.  ^Trtoi ;  Heb.  ii.  9  :  X'^P^^  'i"'^  x'^P'''"'- 

HonicEoteleutou  :  Mt.  v.  19,  the  last  clause  ouiitted  ;  Lk.  vi.  21,  the  same; 
Mt.  V.  4,  5  transposed,  probably  on  account  of  a  previous  overlooking  of  the 
first  clause  ;  vss.  7,  8  the  same  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  5,  iv  airoKaraa-Tafflais  omitted  ; 
Mt.  x.  23,  the  first  clause  written  double  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  2G  and  27,  first  half 
omitted. 

Errors  of  the  ear,  especially  on  account  of  itacism  :  E,om.  ii.  17  :  tSe  for 
6t  5e  ;  Mt.  xxvii.  60  :  KfvaS  for  kuivw  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  3  :  Xpio-rbs  for  XP'^""^"^  !  1  Tim. 
V.  21  :  np6(rKArjcriv  for  Trp6(TK\L<Tiv ;  Jam.  iv.  13  :  ironjaofiei/ .  .  .  noir]ac»/jLei' ;  1  Jn. 
iv.  2  :  yiycoffKerai,  -re ;  2  Cor.  iii.  1  :  et  fih  for  ^  iu.ri ;  xii.  1  :  5et  for  Sij ;  SO 
Tj/j.e'is  and  v/ji.e7s  frequently  mterchanged. 

Interchanges  of  synonyms:  Kvpws  and  6e6s',  Kvpios, 'l'n(^ovs,  and.  XpiarSsj 
'irjaovs  and  avT6s;  elwev,  €<pT],  and  A^yei ;  fxa6i)Tai  and  aw6(TTo\oi;  Se,  koI,  and  odv', 
Sia  and  inr6 ;  ck  and  a-n-6 ;  eira  and  juera  ravra.  —  IlvAri  and  6vpa,  Lk.  xiii.  24, 
Acts  iii.  2  ;  wpa  and  vfi^pa,  Lk.  vii.  21  and  frequently  ;  reAiadi^aerai  and 
Te\€ioodr}creTai,  Lk.  xviii.  31  ;  irifLi^iavTa  and  aTrocrrelKai/Ta,  Jn.  xiii.  20  ;  KaraSiKacr- 
6r](rri  and  KaraicpLOriari,  Mt.  xii.  37  ;  TraiSiou  and  TraiSapiov,  xi.  16  ;  p^yua  and 
\6yos,  Rev.  xvii.  17.  Plural  and  singular,  Mt.  iii.  8  ;  compoimds  and  simples, 
or  two  difi^erent  compounds  ;  prepositions  with  different  cases  ;  modes  and 
tenses  ;  the  article  inserted  and  omitted  ;  personal  pronouns  in  the  genitive 
and  accusative  likewise, —  all  these  in  numberless  cases. 

Transpositions,  especially  in  enumerations  :  Mt.  xv.  30,  x'^^ohs,  rvcpXovs, 
Kcot^ous,  etc.,  in  every  possible  order  ;  Rom.  i.  29  ;  Gal.  v.  20  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  23  ; 
Rev.  viii.  5  ;  Lk.  iii.  24  ff.,  the  genealogy,  in  which  some  copies  have  the 
series  of  names  in  the  strangest  confusion  (because  of  a  change  from  lines 
into  columns  ?)  ;  Heb.  ii.  14,  aV/iaros  kolI  o-apK6s ;  Mt.  xxv.  2,  iJiwpal  —  <pp6vifxoi. 
Or  in  the  construction  :  Mt.  xi.  16  :  Kadrifievois  iv  ayopa7s  ;  1  Jn.  i.  10  (also 
ii.  10,  19)  iv  i-iixlv  ouK  icTTLv  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  8  :  fj  koI  6  vS/xos  ravra  oh  \eyei  ;  Eph.  ii. 
12  :  Twv  SiadrjKwv  ttjj  eizayyeXias  or  t<2v  iirayyeAiwv  ttjs  SioQtjktjs.  So  also  the 
separate  clauses  in  1  Cor.  viii.  8  ;  ix.  1  ;  x.  19  ;  xi.  11  ;  xv.  39. 

Wrongly  resolved  abbreviations  :  Rom.  xii.  11  :  Kaip^  or  Kvpl(j> ;  1  Cor.  ii. 
1 :  jxapTvpiov  or  fjLva-r-fipiov  ;  according  to  some  1  Tim.  iii.  16  :  tis  for  6e6s  ; 
Jn.  xix.  14  :  e/crrj  or  rpiTij  from  numerous  MSS. ;  perhaps  Mt.  xiv.  7  :  cH/j-oa-ev 
instead  of  wixo\6yr]a-ev  ;  Acts  v.  34  :  avdpdirovs  instead  of  atroffrdAovs. 

Wrongly  divided  words  :  Phil.  i.  1  :  aweTriaKS-n-ois  as  one  word;  ii.  4  : 
fKacTTOis  KOTTovvTfs  ;  Gal.  1.  9  '.  TTpoeipTjKa  fjLev  separated. 

Orthographic  confusion,  especially  in  unusual  proper  names,  e.  g.  in  the 
genealogies  ;  Nazareth,  Mt.  iv.  13,  written  in  four  difi'erent  ways,  Gen- 
nesaret,  xiv.  34,  in  nine. 

1  Cor.  vi.  20  :  So^daare  Sr/  t^;'  dehv —  instead  of  S^i,  first  &pa,  then  both  to- 
gether, and  then  in  their  place,  according  to  sound,  apare,  glorificate  ergo  et 
portate  Deum  (Vulg.). 

Displacements  in  the  text  have  been  explained  by  the  loose  connection  of 
the  separate  leaves  ;   Griesbach,  0pp.,  II.  62,  on  Rom.  xvi.  25-27  (§  356). 

On  the  proportion  of  variants  of  this  kind  to  those  before  specified, 
Wetstein  gives  his  opinion  as  follows  (Lihelll  critici,  p.  27)  :  Lectiones  var. 
tantum  non  omnes  studio  et  ingenio  et  conjecturce  librariorum  debentur;  quce  enim 
ex  negligentia  et  incuria  sunt  ortce  vix  centesbnam  earum  partem  constituunt. 
So  also  Griesbach,  I.  c,  p.  105.     But  this  seems  a  little  exaggerated. 

365.  Inasmuch  as  these  various  causes  worked  on  altogether 
unchecked,  the  dissimihirity  of  different  copies  must  soon  have 
increased  so  much  that  the  greatest  confusion  arose,  and  no 


UNDESIGNED  ALTERATIONS  — LOCAL  COLORING.    379 

two  entirely  accorded.  Yet  along  with  all  tliis  diversity  there 
must  also  have  arisen  a  certain  similarity  between  those  manu- 
scripts which  were  connected  by  a  sort  of  kinship,  as  compared 
with  those  which  belonged  to  a  circle  altogether  foreign.  Sev- 
eral causes  contributed  to  give  the  text,  in  regions  where  it 
was  especially  frequently  copied,  a  local  coloring,  that  is  to  say, 
a  form  peculiar  to  those  regions.  The  method  of  the  spread  of 
Christianity,  the  dependence  of  many  churches  on  one  mother 
church,  the  reputation  of  a  library,  a  copyist,  or  a  manuscript, 
even  the  ruling  taste,  style,  and  usage,  brought  about,  amid  all 
the  confusion,  a  greater  homogeneity  among  the  copies  de- 
pendent upon  one  another. 

Ouly  the  more  accidental  variants  repeat  themselves  wholly  independently 
of  one  another.  The  intentional  ones  the  less,  as  they  are  in  higher  degree 
a  result  of  subjective  (critical  or  uncritical)  reflection.  Their  repetition  is 
the  surest  internal  indication  of  dependence  or  relationship.  (External  indi- 
cations, aiding  one  to  orient  himself  more  quickly,  are  the  form  of  the 
characters,  the  color  of  the  ornaments  or  initials,  the  subscriptions,  etc.)  A 
noteworthy  example,  among  others,  of  such  local  differences  of  reading  is 
1  Cor.  XV.  51,  where  the  Constantinopolitan  family  has  the  text  as  now 
printed,  the  Alexandrian  the  reverse  :  Tlavres  fiev  Kotju.T]6ria6fxi6a,  oh  irdvres  Se 
aK\ayr)(r6iJ.e6a;  the  Occidental:  irduTfS  fiev  avaaTri<76fji.eda,  ou  TrdvTes  Se  aWayrjcrS/jieda. 

Newly-founded  churches  received  the  N.  T.  from  the  hands  of  their 
founders,  consequently  indirectly  on  the  authority  of  the  church  wliich  had 
sent  them,  and  by  which  the  whole  province  was  cared  for.  To  secure 
greater  accuracy  and  critical  mtegrity,  the  copies  were  often  collated,  after 
their  completion,  with  specially  valuable  ancient  MSS.  (e'/c  iraXaioiv  avnypatpwif 
dfTt/3aAA6ii/),  and  this  fact  attested  in  a  subscription.  The  collator  intro- 
duced in  the  course  of  this  process  the  necessary  corrections  (Siopddxreis, 
cf.  §  357),  and  many  of  our  extant  MSS.  have  such  coi-rectious  by  a  second 
hand  (§  392). 

Here  may  also  be  mentioned  what  the  ancient  writers  say  of  copies  of 
Origen  and  Pierius,  which  were  especially  valued  (Jerome,  on  Gal.  iii.  1:  in 
exemplariis  quibusdam  Adamantu  the  doubtful  words  are  lacking  ;  on  Mt. 
xxiv.  36  :  in  greeds  maxime  Ad.  et  Pi.  exx.,  the  addition  oiiSe  6  vihs  is  wanting. 
Cf.  Eichhorn,  IV.  250  ff.  ;  Griesbach,  De  codd.  evv.  Origenianis,  0pp.,  I.). 
Ernesti  and  Hug  would  find  in  them  a  proper  critical  recension  of  the  text 
(§  367).  Also  certain  accounts  of  the  library  at  Csesarea,  where  the  works 
of  Origen  were  preserved,  and  copies  by  Pamphilus,  qui  multos  codices 
prceparahat  et  cum  necessitas  poposcisset  volentibus  largiretur  (Jerome,  Adv. 
Rujin.,  II.  9  ;  De  scriptt.  eccL,  ch.  75  ;  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  VI.  32).  Subscription 
to  Cod.  H,  Paul.  :  a.ur^^\-i]Qy]  irphs  rh  iv  Kaiffapelq.  avriypatpov  ttjs  ^i^\ioQi^Kr)s  tov 
aylov  IlafKplKov  x^ 'P^  yeypajj.fj.evov  aurov,  and  several  others.  Cf .  the  subscription 
to  the  book  of  Esther  in  Cod.  Frid.  August.  (proT^erl j  Sinaiiicus),  in  Tischen- 
dorf,  Cod.  N.  T.  Sin.,  1863,  Prolegg.,  p.  33.  _ 

Influence  of  the  Alexandrian  passion  for  classicism,  or  of  a  provincial 
dialect  (e.  g.,  Alexandrian  :  ei-Kuv,  eirea-av,  iSlSoa-av,  dxoffav,  ^'ASare,  (Tv\\-fiiJ.ipTi, 
etc.),  upon  the  special  form  of  the  text,  and  the  possibility  of  determining  the 
origin  of  the  extant  MSS.  thereby.  The  Occidental  have  more  frequent 
scholia  and  glosses  ;  the  Egyptian  more  grammatical  corrections. 

366.  In  general,  however,  the  greater  stability  in  the  form 
of  the  text  begins  with  the  period  when  more  numerous  copies 


380  HISTOKY   OF  THE   WRITTEN  TEXT. 

were  made  for  the  churches  and  for  public  use,  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  which  the  best  helps  were  sought,  and  which  in  turn 
served  as  the  foundation  of  many  other  copies.  Unfortunately, 
however,  many  churches  were  prepossessed  in  favor  of  old, 
often  faulty  copies,  which  had  come  down  to  them  by  inher- 
itance, or  of  a  yet  more  faulty  version,  and  rejected  with 
distrust  all  that  did  not  agree  with  them ;  whereby  not  only 
was  the  danger  of  further  corruption  avoided,  but  also  the 
necessary  correction  was  prevented.  Most  of  the  variations  of 
text,  in  any  way  remarkable,  which  have  come  down  to  us,  and 
many  which  have  disappeared  from  all  the  manuscripts  now 
extant,  were  already  in  existence  in  the  fourth  century. 

The  ever  closer  union  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church,  as  well  as  the 
increasing  unalterableuess  of  exegesis,  may  also  have  contributed  their  share 
to  the  gradual  fixing  of  the  text.  Cf .  Griesbach,  0pp.,  II.  128  ff.  The  same 
author  asserts,  p.  101  ff.,  that  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  no 
important  variants  (except  accidental  ones)  came  into  the  text. 

Story  of  the  fifty  church  copies  prepared  by  Eusebius  for  Constantine, 
Vita  Const.,  iv.  36  ;  E.  A.  Frommann,  De  codd.  SS.  Jussu  Const.  M.  ah  Euse- 
bio  adornatis,  1759  (0pp.,  p.  303)  ;  Ernesti,  Bibl.,  II.  384. 

Origen  was  afraid  to  undertake  a  critical  work  on  the  N.  T. ;  at  least  he 
says,  in  the  ancient  translation  of  the  passage  quoted  in  §  355  (but  not  in 
the  original),  after  having  spoken  of  his  critical  works  on  the  O.  T. :  Li  ex- 
emplarihus  autem  N.  T.  hoc  ipsum  me  posse  facere  sine  periculo  non  putavi. 
Jerome  (Prcef.  ad  Evv.)  knows  beforehand  that  he  will  be  decried  as  a 
falsarius  and  sacrilegus  on  account  of  his  revision  of  the  Latin  version.  In 
the  decree  of  Gelasius  (§  324)  the  critical  e£Eorts  of  Lucian  and  Hesychius 
are  placed  among  the  forged  apocryphal  works.  Evv.  qucefalsavit  Lucianus 
apocrypha.     Evv.  quce  falsavit  Jsicius  {al.  al.)  apocrypha.     See  §  367. 

Examjiles  of  readings  which,  formerly  of  more  or  less  wide  occurrence, 
have  almost  or  quite  disappeared  from  the  MSS.  :  Mt.  xxvii.  53  :  /uero  tV 
iyep(TLv  avTuv,  according  to  Glycas  in  all  the  MSS.,  now  found  almost  alone 
in  Oriental  versions.  —  A  scholium  on  Mk.  xi.  11  mentions  the  addition,  now 
altogether  disappeared,  oivai,iwv  wtuv  tui/  'lovSaicov  ;  Jerome  mentions  a  long 
addition  to  Mk.  xvi.  14  in  the  Latin  and  especially  the  Greek  MSS.,  evidently 
apocryphal,  which  is  now  no  longer  to  be  found.  In  Heb.  ii.  9  the  general 
reading  is  now  x^P''^' !  ^"^  until  into  the  fifth  century  the  Fathers  hesitated 
and  some  read  x'^P'*  >  ^^^  Tischendorf,  ad  loc.  In  Eph.  i.  2  down  to  the 
time  of  Basilius  ev  'E^ea-qi  was  lacking  in  the  text  ;  now  only  in  Cod.  B  and 
Sin.  ;  in  1  Jn.  iv.  3  the  Latin  witnesses  and  the  Greek  writers  (Socrates,  VII. 
32)  read  6  \vei  'l-ncrovv,  wliich  is  not  now  found  in  any  MS. 

367.  In  spite  of  this  distrust,  some  men  ventured  to  purify 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  so  far  as  possible, 
from  the  errors  which  had  crept  into  it,  and  to  undertake  with 
it  a  work  which  had  already  been  attempted,  as  an  imperative 
necessity,  with  the  Greek  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  Thus 
arose,  toward  the  close  of  the  third  century,  at  nearly  the  same 
time,  two  critical  recensions  of  the  New  Testament,  the  one  by 
the  Egyptian  bishop  Hesychius,  the  other  by  the  Antiochian 
presbyter  Lucian.  Of  their  sources,  character,  and  critical 
principles,  however,  in  the  complete  lack  of  all  definite  infor- 
mation and  documents,  we  are  in  absolute  ignorance. 


RECENSIONS  — MIXED   TEXTS.  381 

Jerome,  Ad  Damas.,  Prcef.  in  Evv. :  Prcetermitto  eos  codices  quos  a  Luciano 
et  Hesychio  nuncupatos  paucorum  hominum  asserit  perversa  contentio,  quibus 
nee  in  toto  V.  T.  post  LXX.  interpretes  emendare  quid  licuit  nee  in  novo  profuit 
emendasse,  cum  muUarum  gentium  Unguis  scriptura  antea  translata  doceat  falsa 
esse  quce  addita  sunt.  From  the  tone  of  this  one  might  get  the  idea  that 
these  men  had  simply  undertaken  to  expunge  (apocryphal  ?)  interpolations, 
or  on  the  other  hand  to  introduce  them.  In  the  latter  sense,  perhaps,  is  the 
decree  of  Gelasius  to  be  understood  (§  366),  though  doubtless  only  from 
hearsay.  Perhaps  also  Jerome,  De  viris  ill.,  ch.  Ixxvii.  :  Lucianus  vir  diser- 
tissimus  tantmn  in  S.  S,  studio  laboravit  ut  usque  nunc  quoidam  exemplaria 
S.  S.  lucianea  nuncupentur. 

Jerome,  Prcef.  ad  Paralip. :  Alexandria  et  JEgyptus  in  LXX.  suis  He- 
sychium  laudat  auctorem,  Constantinopolis  usque  ad  Antiochiam  Luciani  exem- 
plaria prohat,  medice  inter  has  provincice  palcestinos  codd.  legunt  quos  ah  Origene 
elaboratos  Eusebius  et  Pamphilus  vulgaverunt,  totusque  orbis  trifarla  hac  inter 
se  varietate  compugnat  ;  ef.  Ad  Rujin.,  II.  26,  p.  152,  Frankf.  In  all  this  the 
reference  is  to  the  O.  T.  alone. 

Essay  on  these  recensions  (doubted  by  some,  see  Scholz,  Prolegg.,  I.  23  ; 
De  Wette,  II.  §  39  ;  Griesbach,  Meletem.,  II.  47  If.)  in  Semler,  Ad  Wetstenii 
libell.  crit.,  p.  83  and  passim;  Hug,  see  below,  §  412  ;  Eichhorn,  IV.  278— 
304  ;  cf .  also  J.  P.  Nickes,  De  V.  T.  codlcum  grcecorum  familiis,  Monast. 
1853.  Mill,  Prolegg.,  §  333,  identifies  this  Luciau  with  Leucius,  the  fabri- 
cator of  apocryphal  writings  (§  261). 

Erroneous  opinion  that  Origen  also  made  a  recension  of  his  own  of  the 
text  of  the  N.  T.  ;  see  Hug,  /.  c. ;  Dathe,  De  Origine  gramm.  interpr.  auc- 
tore,  p.  19  f.,  and  §  365. 

368.  The  fate  of  these  recensions,  and  how  far,  even  in  their 
own  lands,  they  may  have  found  favor,  is  wholly  unknown  to 
us.  That  their  circulation,  in  any  case,  could  only  have  been 
slow  and  difficult  is  self-evident.  The  most  probable  view  is 
that  they  never,  at  any  time  or  in  any  phice,  enjoyed  public 
favor,  and  that  the  learned,  who  probably  were  the  only  ones 
who  adopted  them,  brought  about  their  early  disappearance 
along  with  their  own.  For  since  the  unrevised  text  existed  in 
many  manuscripts  along  side  of  the  revised,  and  doubtless  most 
were  unwilling  to  give  it  up,  both  on  account  of  attachment  to 
to  the  old  and  of  the  material  value  of  the  books,  they  pre- 
ferred to  make  more  or  less  numerous  corrections  in  them  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  new  recension,  each  accepting  whatever,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  judgment,  seemed  useful  or  necessary.  Thus 
many  manuscripts  may  have  come  to  contain  a  third,  mixed 
text,  exhibiting  only  partially  the  peculiarities  of  the  recension 
from  which  it  proceeded,  and  the  attempt  at  purification  be- 
came a  source  of  new  confusion. 

The  two  recensions  themselves  may  have  become  intermingled  in  the  same 
way.  Eichhorn,  IV.  306-320,  attempts  to  point  out  examples  of  such  inter- 
mingling. But  such  textual  reconstructions  rest  upon  altogether  insufficient 
grounds. 

369.  It  is  sufficiently  evident  from  the  foregoing  that  any 
strict  separation  of  readings  according  to  the  locality  of  their 
origin  and  circulation,  or  according  to  the  particular  families  to 


382  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

which  they  tiuiy  belong,  is  not  only  beset  with  the  greatest 
difficulties,  but  is  well-nigh  impossible.  In  order  to  be  able  to 
do  this  we  must  first  be  able  to  arrange  the  existing  critical 
witnesses  themselves  in  like  manner.  True,  it  may  be  deter- 
mined in  advance,  by  means  of  the  Church  Fathers  and  Ver- 
sions, in  general,  and  in  so  far  as  accident  does  not  lead  astray, 
with  what  local  text  they  must  be  classed.  But  as  respects  the 
former  the  fragmentary  character  of  their  quotations,  and  as 
respects  the  latter  the  indirectness  of  their  evidence,  in  great 
part  does  away  with  this  presumption.  Besides,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  single  class,  the  manuscrijDts  of  any  one  region 
are  not  numerous  enough  to  yield  trustworthy  results  by  com- 
parison. The  oldest  and  most  important  are  completely  iso- 
lated as  respects  the  place  and  time  of  their  origin,  and  hence 
can  only  be  classified  with  difficulty.  Moreover,  in  view  of 
the  undeniable  mixture  of  readings,  no  single  witness  can  be 
regarded  as  a  pure  representative  or  type  of  any  local  text. 

Hence  the  conflicting  divisions  and  designations  of  scholars  ;  see  below,  in 
the  history  of  the  modern  editions.  Even  in  the  classification  of  witnesses 
they  do  not  altogether  agree,  and  the  problem  is  still  move  complicated  by 
the  partial  distinction  (Hug,  Eichhorn,  and  others)  of  an  unrevised,  revised, 
and  mixed  text. 

370.  Nothing  remains  for  us,  therefore,  but  to  note  the  more 
frequent  and  at  the  same  time  peculiar  and  striking  variations 
of  text,  and  to  pass  over  the  great  mass  of  the  rest,  which 
occur  only  here  and  there,  or  which,  though  occurring  more 
frequently,  are  evidently  purely  accidental,  —  in  a  word,  the 
less  important  ones.  The  comparison  of  the  former  ma.y  then, 
to  a  certain  extent,  reveal  the  closer  or  more  distant  rela- 
tionship of  the  witnesses,  and  so  give  us  an  approximate, 
though  never  a  perfect,  insight  into  the  quality  of  a  particu- 
lar form  of  the  text,  whose  geographical  home  may  even  then 
be  conjectured  more  easily  from  the  known  origin  of  partic- 
ular manuscripts  and  the  nativity  of  the  Fathers  and  Versions 
agreeing  with  it.  But  a  grouping  in  the  large  is  all  that  will 
be  possible  ;  attempts  at  accuracy  lead  on  the  one  side  to  arbi- 
trariness, on  the  other  to  obscurity.  We  shall  be  obliged  to 
content  ourselves  with  the  general  distinction  of  Alexandrian, 
Constantinopolitan,  and  Occidental  texts,  and  perhaps  should 
regard  even  the  use  of  these  terms  as  in  part  only  conven- 
tional. 

The  expression  Occidental  text  is  an  inappropriate  one,  inasmuch  as  the 
West  did  not  trouble  itself  about  the  Greek  original.  We  may  designate 
thereby  peculiar  readings  of  the  Latin  Versions  and  Fathers  which  occur 
also  in  certain  ancient  manuscripts,  e.  g.,  D  Gospels,  D,  E,  F,  G  Paul.  The 
sources  of  these  readings,  however,  must  have  been  closely  related  to  those 
of  the  ancient  Oriental  text,  since  the  Peshito,  the  Sahidic  Version,  Alex- 
andrian codices,  Clement,  and  Origen  frequently  agree  with  them. 


THREE  GENERAL  FORMS  OF  THE  TEXT.       883 

A  text  which  may  be  more  definitely  designated  as  Alexandi-ian  is  pre- 
sented in  the  noteworthy  agreement  in  certain  peculiar  readings  of  Atha- 
nasiiis,  Cyril,  and  other  Egyptian  Fathers  with  the  Memphitic,  Etliiopic,  Ar- 
menian, and  in  part  also  the  Philoxeuian  Versions.  To  this  belong  B,  C,  L 
Gospels,  E  Acts,  A,  B,  C,  H  Paul. 

The  Constantinopolitan  text  is  found,  in  ancient  times,  in  the  Gothic  and 
Slavic  Versions,  in  the  Fathers  of  this  region  from  the  fourth  to  the  sixth 
century,  and  in  E,  F,  G,  H,  S,  V  Gospels  ;  in  later  times,  in  most  of  our 
cursive  manuscripts.  The  circumstance  that  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourth 
century  fifty  Bibles  came  at  once  from  Palestine  to  Constantinople  at  the 
imperial  order  (§  3G6)  would  perhaps  allow  us  to  infer  to  a  certain  extent  a 
dependence  of  the  later  Byzantine  text  on  the  Alexandrian. 

The  following  collection  of  the  most  important  variants  from  1  Cor.  xv. 
may  serve  for  illustration  :  — 

1.  ecTTTjKare  Alex.  Const.,  arr\K€Te  Occ.  2.  et  /carexsTe  Alex.  Const.,  6(pel\eTe 
KOLrix^^"  Occ.  5.  eira  Const.,  eVeira  Alex.,  /uerd  raCra  Occ;  SwSeKa  Const.,  'ivhiKa 
Occ.  and  in  part  Alex.  6.  irheiovs  Const.,  Tr\iiov€s  Alex.  Occ;  koI  is  wanting  in 
Alex.  Occ.  10.  Instead  of  ov  k€vt)  Occ.  witnesses  read  irruxh  oh.  15.  elVep 
&pa  veKpot  ovK  eyelpovTai  is  wanting  in  many  Occ.  and  Alex,  witnesses.  19. 
Alex,  and  Occ.  place  eV  XpLtrrw  before  i)\-iTtK6Tes,  20.  Const,  adds  iyepero 
at  the  end.  23.  Occ.  adds  ^AirlaavTes  at  the  end.  24.  irapaSo}  Const.,  the  others 
irapaSiSw  .  .  .  SiSuiat  .  .  SlSo7.  29.  Const,  has  virep  rwv  veKpcou  twice,  Alex.  Occ. 
the  second  time  uirep  ahriuv.  31.  v/xiTepav  Const.  Occ,  v/xerfpay  Alex.;  after 
KavxTTyt"  Alex,  and  Occ.  in  part  insert  aSfAcpol.  33.  XP'V^'  Const.  ;  everywhere 
else  xp'?<'"^«-  36.  6.(ppccv  Alex.  Occ,  li<ppoy  Const.  39.  Const,  inserts  crdp^  be- 
fore avQp<i)-Kwv  ;  before  KTi)v6iv  Occ.  omits  it.  44.  et  iari  awfxa  if',  eari  Kal  izv- 
Alex.  Occ,  ecTTi  (TcS^a  ^.  Koi  effTi  a.  iry.  Const.  47.  Alex.  Occ.  lack  6  Kvpios, 
but  the  latter  adds  6  ovpdvios  at  the  end.  50.  K\-npovofxel  Const.  Alex.,  kA»j- 
povomcTii  Occ.  51.  Cf.  §  305.  62.  poiry  Occ,  avaariiaovTai  Alex.  Occ,  eyep- 
drjo-ovTUL  Const.,  etc. 

Similar  tables  in  Scholz,  I.  p.  xx.;  Eichhom,  IV.  321,  etc  [by  B.  B.  War- 
field,  in  Schaff's  Comp.  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  222].  Only  let  it  not  be  mider- 
stood  that  all  the  witnesses  of  a  family  always  agree. 

371.  After  the  conquests  of  the  Arabs  tlie  text  of  the  New 
Testament  suffered  but  few  new  and  noteworthy  alterations. 
Egypt  and  Syria  forgot  the  Greek  language  and  no  longer  pre- 
pared manuscripts.  In  the  West  men  either  did  not  feel  the 
need  of  them  at  all,  or  contented  themselves  with  the  few 
old  copies  which  had  been  preserved  from  earher  times.  In 
Greece,  on  the  contrary,  where  alone  the  need  of  them  was 
still  felt,  the  ancient  books  were  soon  worn  out  and  destroyed, 
and  there  remained  only  a  great  mass  of  later  copies,  with 
which,  upon  the  revival  of  Greek  studies,  the  west  of  Europe 
also  was  supplied,  or  which  at  least  must  often  have  been  the 
sources  of  occidental  copies.  The  ignorance  and  thoughtless- 
ness of  the  later  copyists,  by  which  the  strangest  blunders  were 
often  introduced  into  the  text,  at  the  same  time  protected  it 
from  all  intentional  disfigurement. 

Droll  examples  of  such  misconceptions :  2  Cor.  viii.  4,  Cod.  Corsend.  (3) 
at  Vienna,  has  in  the  text :  eV  iroWo^s  twu  avnypdcpoov  ovtws  eup-nrai ;  Mt.  xxvi. 
60,  Cod.  D  has  two  different  ancient  marginal  readings  in  the  text  at  the 
same  time,  each  simply  with  the  introductory  words  and  the  addition  jh  elf/s 


384  HISTOEY  OF  THE   WETTTEN  TEXT. 

(i.  e.  etc.),  and  from  this,  in  the  accompanying  version,  sequentia  ;  cf.  Gries- 
bach,  0pp.,  II.  110  ;  Scholz,  Prolecjg.,  I.  14.  —  1  Cor.  xv.  5,  Cod.  E  combines 
two  different  readings  of  its  critically  emended  original,  placed  one  over  the 
other,  fiera  ravTa  [elra\  toIs  SciSeKa  [eVSe/ca],  in  this  mamier  :  juera  Taueira  tou 
SwevSeKa ;  Heb.  x.  33,  the  same  MS.  has  in  the  same  way,  viSi^o/xevodfarpL^o/xevoi 
(the  first  half  is  the  various  reading  weLSi(6fj.ivoi) ;  Heb.  vii.  3,  in  the  Complu- 
tensian  Edition,  after  a  MS.,  a  portion  of  the  table  of  contents  of  the  chap- 
ter (eV  ^  '6ti  Koi  rod  'A^paafj.  irpoeTtfiriOT])  stands  iu  the  midst  of  the  text. 

An  exhaustless  source  of  easy  corruption  was  the  orthography,  which  had 
become  unsettled  because  of  Itacism,  by  which  tj,  i,  v,  oi,  ei,  etc.,  were  fre- 
quently interchanged.  The  oldest  editions,  especially  Erasmus  and  the  Com- 
pluteusian,  too  often  allowed  these  errors  to  stand. 

372.  Having  now  given  an  account  in  the  foregoing  of  the 
vicissitudes  through  which  the  text  itself  has  passed,  and  hav- 
ing pointed  out  the  circumstances  and  conditions  which  con- 
tributed at  the  first  to  its  increasing  corruption,  afterward  to 
its  sufficient  preservation  as  to  its  main  substance,  it  remains 
to  say  something  more  of  the  external  form  of  the  ancient 
manuscripts  of  the  Bible.  True,  this  department  of  the  sci- 
ence, beyond  all  treated  in  this  history,  is  not  only  altogether 
foreign  to  theology,  but  is  no  more  closely  connected  with  even 
a  purely  literary-historical  conception  of  our  subject  than  would 
be  the  case  with  any  other  book  of  antiquity;  the  matter  might 
appropriately  be  left  to  the  general  history  of  literature  or  of 
human  arts.  Yet  we  are  determined,  partly  by  custom,  still 
more  by  the  direct  relation  of  many  externals  to  the  form  of 
the  text  itself  or  to  the  estimation  of  critical  aids,  to  undertake 
the  description  of  these  matters  also. 

Strictly  speaking,  only  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  material  and  form  of  the 
books,  and  the  characters  in  which  they  are  written,  is  foreign  to  biblical 
science  proper.  On  the  contrary,  the  treatment  of  the  text  for  the  purpose  of 
easier  understanding  (Punctuation,  Divisions,  etc.)  is  closely  connected  with 
the  main  subject. 

373.  The  Egyptian  paper,  whose  want  of  durability  was  an 
injury  to  the  literature,  early  went  out  of  use,  and  was  re- 
placed by  several  other  materials.  From  the  fourth  century 
manuscripts  of  the  Bible  were  multiplied  upon  prepared  skins. 
But  later,  when  parchment  became  so  scarce  that  men  began 
to  erase  the  writing  of  ancient  books  in  oi'der  to  replace  it  by 
new,  cotton  paper  fortunately  came  into  use,  the  oldest  traces 
of  which  reach  back  into  the  tenth  century,  and  finally,  in  the 
thirteenth,  the  still  used  linen  or  rag  paper. 

It  is  related,  for  example  (Jerome,  De  vir.  ill.,  ch.  113;  Ep.  ad  MarcelL, 
III.  76),  that  the  library  of  Pamphilus  at  Cesarea,  even  in  the  century  of 
its  origin,  had  already  become  so  dilapidated  {corrupta)  that  the  priests  Aca- 
cius  and  Euzoius  began  to  rewrite  it  upon  skins. 

Very  few  papyrus  manuscripts  (beside  those  of  Herculaneum  and  those 
belonging  to  the  Egyptian  literature)  are  extant,  of  the  Greek  N.  T.  in  pa^'- 
ticular  none  at  all  to  my  knowledge,  since  it  has  been  shown  that  the  Cod. 


MANUSCRIPTS  —  MATERIAL  —  FORM.  385 

CottoiiiaiHis  (Gospels  I)  in  the  British  Museum  consists  of  parchment,  and 
not,  as  was  believed  from  the  time  of  Wetstein,  of  papyrus. 

The  order  of  Constautine  for  the  making  of  parchment  copies  for  the 
churches  of  Constantinople  (§  366)  is  well  known.  Beautiful  manuscripts, 
finely  written  in  golden  letters  upon  thin  parchment  (v/xevoov  AeTrrt^Tr/s),  were 
articles  of  pious  luxury  even  in  the  fourth  century  (Chrysostom,  Homil.  32 
in  J  oh.,  0pp.,  VIII.  188).  Jerome  also  {Prcef.  in  J  oh.)  censures  the  pas- 
sion for  copying  old  books  upon  membranas  purpureas  aura  argentoque,  instead 
of  looking  to  the  purity  of  the  text. 

All  the  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  now  extant  are  these  Codices 
membranacei,  SicpBepai. 

Codices  rescripti,  iraAlfMxl/ritTToi  (e.  g.  C,  P,  Q,  Z)  (the  new  wi-iting  sometimes 
between  the  lines  of  the  old,  sometimes  crosswise),  see  Kopp,  Bilder  und 
Schriften  der  Vorzeii,  I.  185  ;  Knittel,  below,  §  445  ;  Tischendorf,  Codex 
Ephrem.,  see  §  392. 

Charta  bombycina,  lintea.  —  Our  quill  pens  first  came  into  use  in  the  seventh 
century. 

Cf.  in  general  G.  F.  Wehrs,  Vom  Papier,  den  vor  der  Erfindung  desselben 
iiblich  gewesenen  Schreibmassen,  etc.,  Halle,  1789. 

374.  Even  earlier,  perhaps,  a  change  took  place  in  the  form 
of  the  books.  The  inconvenient  rolls  were  exchanged  for  bun- 
dles of  a  certain  number  of  leaves  which  were  laid  one  upon 
another  or  folded  together  and  then  bound  up  into  volumes. 
The  single  bundles  or  layers  forming  the  volume  were  not  nec- 
essarily equal  in  number  of  leaves,  but  in  size  were  mostly  like 
our  present  quarto  and  small  folio,  with  a  gradual  tendency  to 
grow  smaller. 

The  layers  were  called,  according  to  the  number  of  double  leaves,  Tpiaait, 
terniones,  of  twelve  pages,  rerpaa-aa,  quaterniones,  of  sixteen  pages  (Euseb., 
Vita  Const.,  IV.  37) ;  so  also  quinterniones,  of  twenty  pages,  etc. 

Tevxos,  volumen,  the  whole  volume  (hence,  for  example,  ri  irevTo.T^vxo^  sc. 
j8^/3Aos,  the  Wty\n  or  five-parted  (book  of  the  Mosaic  Law),  cf.  Joh.  Damasc. 
above,  §  328).     Also  awixdnov  (Euseb.,  I.  c,  36). 

375.  On  the  other  hand,  the  old  characters  and  the  custom 
of  writing  in  columns  were  maintained  for  a  long  time.  Yet 
the  first  gradually  lost  their  stiffness  and  perpendicular  lines, 
became  inclined,  and  began  to  be  connected  together,  until  in 
the  tenth  century  the  cursive  character  became  general,  and 
uncials  were  used  only  for  sumptuous  copies.  About  this  time 
also  decorations,  gilding,  and  illuminated  initial  letters  came 
into  use,  and  in  proportion  as  the  spirit  and  contents  of  tlie 
Scriptures  became  more  alien  to  those  whose  chief  business 
was  copying,  they  gave  the  greater  care  to  the  external  make- 
up of  the  copies. 

Liter ce  majusculce  (unciales'),  minusculce. 

For  fac-sinailes  of  the  writing  of  various  N.  T.  MSS.  see  (beside  §  352) 
the  different  volumes  of  the  larger  edition  of  Matthfei  (§  413) ;  Hug,  in  his 
Einl. ;  Birch's  Gospels  (§  417) ;  Bianchini  (§  453),  and  many  monographs  on 
single  codices  (§  392). 

The  oldest  cursive  manuscripts,  so  far  as  can  be  determined,  date  from 
25 


386  HISTORY   OF  TliE    WRITTEN   TEXT. 

the  years  890-900.  The  uncial  MSS.  G,  H,  M,  S,  U,  X  Gospels,  E,  F  Paul, 
are  thought  to  be  later.  Particularly  in  lectionaries  the  uncial  character 
maintained  itself  longer. 

The  number  of  columns  was  not  the  same  in  all  MSS.;  e.  g.,  Cod.  A  has 
two  columns  on  a  page,  Cod.  B  three,  Cod.  Sinaiticus  four,  while  Cod.  C  has 
continuous  lines. 

The  custom  of  large  initials,  colored  and  flourished,  survived  the  begin- 
ning of  printing,  and  reappears  in  the  incunabula.  Even  when  they  were 
omitted  the  printers  for  a  long  time  left  spaces  for  them.  — ^  Abbreviations, 
compendia  scripturce,  and  ligatures  came  more  and  more  into  use,  and  the 
oldest  printed  editions  are  in  tliis  respect  true  fac-similes  of  the  later  MSS. 
The  oldest  abbreviations,  of  the  most  frequent  names  and  words,  which  are 
found  even  in  A,  B,  C,  are  simply  combinations  of  the  inflective  ending  with 

the  initial  letter,  with  a  line  drawn  above  :  0C,  0T,  IC,  IT,  KC,  KY,  nNA,  nNC, 
ICA,  for  Oehs,  6fov,  'Ir/cous,  'irjcrov,  Kvpios,  Kvp'tov,  Tn/fv/.i.a,  Trreu/xaros,  'l(Tpar]\,  and 
some  few  others.     A  stroke  for  N  at  the  end  of  words  also  occurs  early. 

376.  Aside  from  the  general  scarcity  of  books,  reading  was 
rendered  difficult  for  the  unpracticed  by  the  total  lack  of  all 
explanatory  pointing.  It  was  not  until  in  the  course  of  the 
ninth  century,  after  isolated  attempts  in  earlier  times,  that 
copyists  generally  introduced  the  breathings  and  accents  into 
the  copies  of  the  New  Testament.  A  still  greater  hindrance 
to  the  easy  reading  of  the  text  was  the  custom  of  writing  with- 
out breaks  between  the  words.  This  gave  occasion  for  many 
misunderstandings,  and  much  theological  wrangling.  The  evil 
was  but  poorly  remedied  by  more  frequent  initial  letters,  and 
w.hen  punctuation  was  finally  adopted  science  was  no  longer 
free  and  clear  enough  to  get  the  full  advantage  of  it. 

The  oldest  application  of  the  system  of  accentuation  (§  352)  to  the  N.  T. 
is  in  Cod.  B  (by  the  first  hand  ?).  Euthalius  (§  377)  introduced  it  into  his 
edition  (ayayvwvat  KUTct.  npoawSiav,  p.  409),  but  without  winning  general  ac- 
ceptance for  it.  Among  the  older  MSS.  D,  E  Paul,  E,  K,  L,  M  Gospels 
also  have  accents  and  breathings  ;  it  is  only  with  tlie  cursive  character  that 
their  introduction  becomes  more  general.  It  appears  to  have  taken  place 
much  earlier  with  the  LXX.,  for  Epiphanius  (end  of  the  fourth  century) 
testifies  to  the  use  of  a-riCeiu  /cora  irpoawSiav  in  the  Scriptures  (7)e  pondd.  et 
mens.,  2),  and  also  mentions  our  still  used  accents,  breathings,  marks  of  quan- 
tity, critical  marks,  and  even  a  mark  of  punctuation. 

The  Iota  subscript  (earlier  sometimes,  postscript)  was  introduced  with  the 
cursive  character. 

Examples  of  doubtful  construction  because  of  the  lack  of  punctuation  : 
Jn.  i.  3  :  &  yeyovev  iv  avT^,  Epiph.,  Anchor.,  lo  ;  f>  yiyovev.  'Er  avr^,  Chrysos- 
tom,  ad  loc. ;  ovSe  eV.  'O  yeyovev,  Clement  and  the  Alexandrians  ;  also  the 
Macedonians.  —  2  Cor.  iv.  4  :  6  dehs,  rod  aloSfos  tovtov,  Tertul.,  Adv.  Marc, 
V.  11,  Theodoret,  arf  Zoc,  against  Marcion  and  moderns.  —  Rom.  viii.  20: 
iw'  ihTrlSt  with  the  foregoing,  Theodoret,  ad  loc.  —  1  Cor.  iii.  18  :  eV  rqi  alcSui 
with  the  foregoing  by  the  same  writer  ;  with  the  following  by  Clrrysostom  ; 
so  fxera  xapas,  Col.  i.  11,  by  the  same  writers.  —  Eph.  i.  5,  in  caritate  with 
the  foregoing  by  Jerome  and  many  others.  The  same  uncertainty  and 
arbitrariness  from  this  cause  still  continues  in  numerous  passages  in  the  edi- 
tions and  in  exegesis.  By  way  of  example  we  may  refer  to  Jn.  xiii.  30, 
where  Sre  e|^A9e  is  sometimes  connected  in  the  editions  with  the  foregoing 


PUNCTUATION  — STICHOMETRY.  387 

and  sometimes  (with  and  without  ovf)  with  the  following  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  34, 
where  the  absence  of  an  attested  punctuation  has  introduced  the  greatest 
conceivable  confusion  into  the  text  through  transpositions  and  interpolated 
particles  ;  Gal.  v.  1,  where  some  of  the  editions  begin  the  chajiter  with 
2T7J»c6Te  oiu,  connecting  what  precedes  with  the  fourth  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  15,  where 
the  new  sentence  is  begun  sometimes  with  arvKos,  sometimes  not  until  koI 
ofxoXoy. ;  Ja.  V.  3,  where  the  relation  of  ws  irvp  is  doubtful.  Cf .  also  in  tlie 
editions  and  commentaries,  Mk.  ix.  23;  Lk.  xxi.  35;  Rom.  iii.  9;  Heb.  xii. 
22  ;  Ja.  iv.  5,  etc. 

Hence  there  was  doubtless  in  ancient  times  a  reluctance  to  introduce  a 
jDunctuation  which  might  easily  become  suspicious,  and  in  various  other  pas- 
sages, where  the  interpretation  had  already  been  fixed  by  the  Church,  there 
was  very  early  a  traditional  diaareWeij/  tV  avayvucnv  or  virocni^^nv ;  e.  g.,  Jn. 
i.  3  in  A,  1),  according  to  the  Alexandrian  reading. 

The  technical  grammatical  terms  (e.  g.,Te\ela  (rriyjx^,  Chrysostom,  J.c?  Joh. 
i.  3)  existed  independently  of  the  corresponding  usage  in  ^^Titing. 

For  examples  of  variants  caused  by  scriptio  continua  see  §  3(34.  —  On  the 
uncertainty  springing  from  the  absence  of  other  marks  cf.,  for  example, 
Acts  xxvii.  13,  where  the  printed  editions  have  taken  "kaaoVj'^Aaaov,  aaaov, 
S,<Tcrov  sometimes  as  a  proper  name,  sometimes  as  an  adverb,  and  the  more 
correct  form  has  become  generally  prevalent  only  in  modern  times. 

Codices  of  the  N.  T.  of  the  period  before  stichometry  ;  A,  B,  C,  Z,  Lin. 

377.  Some  of  these  inconveniences  were  removed  by  the 
Alexandrian  deacon  Euthalius,  in  his  edition  of  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  completed  about  the  year  462,  in  which  the  text  was 
divided  into  stichoi  or  lines,  each  line  containing  one  clause. 
This  method,  which  represented,  as  it  were,  a  punctuation  of 
ideas,  met  with  approval,  and  was  applied  by  others  to  the 
Gospels  also.  This  stichometric  writing,  as  it  is  called,  was  in 
use  down  to  the  eighth  century.  It  may  not  have  been,  how- 
evei-,  an  invention  of  Euthalius,  but  only  the  application  of  an 
older  custom  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

Stichometry  was  introduced  into  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
classics  (orators)  in  the  fourth  century.  Jerome  (Prcef.  in  Jes. :  interpreta- 
tionevi  novum  novo  scrlhendi  genere  distinximus)  made  use  of  it  in  his  transla- 
tion. It  occurs  in  the  O.  T.  (Masoretic  text)  in  some  poetic  passages,  simple 
in  Dent,  xxxii.,  more  elaborate  in  Ex.  xv.,  Judg.  v.  ;  also  in  the  ordinary 
printed  editions. 

In  the  Greek  O.  T.  Origen  had  the  poetical  books  likewise  written  a-TixvpoSs, 
anxv^^",  Kara  arixous  ;  this  remained  the  custom  (Greg.  Naz.,  Cann.,  xxxiii., 
Amphilochius,  Iambi  ad  Sel.,  and  others,  number  TreVre  (XTixvpas  0i/3Aovs),  and 
has  been  followed  in  several  editions  of  the  LXX.  (also  for  Wisdom  and 
Sirach).  So  in  the  Cod.  Alex,  and  Vatic,  and  several  Greek  psalters  ;  also 
in  MSS.  and  older  editions  of  the  Vulgate. 

Euthalius,  Ep.  Sulcensis  actuum  app.  et  epistolarum,  ed.  Gr.  and  Lat.,  by 
L.  A.  Zacagnius  :  (in  Collect,  monum.  vett.  eccL,  Rome,  1698,  4°,  p.  403  fp.) 
■KpuTov  ^yttiyf:  TTj;/  awoaToXiKTjv  fii^Kov  aroiX'^^i'  (read  aTixv^hv)  avayvovs  re  Kol 
ypdxl/as  ...  ;  p.  410  :  irphs  evarjuov  a.vayvw<riv.  .  .  .  Cf.  Wetstein,  Prolegg.,  p. 
195,  ed.  Semler  (ed.  1730,  p.  73  ff.)  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  interpr.,  IV.  3  ff.  ; 
especially  Mill,  Prolegg.,  940  ff. 

On  the  different  meanings  of  o-ti'xos  (versus,  versiculus^  among  the  ancients 
(line,  verse,  clause),  see  especially  Suicer,  suh  voce ;  Ritschl,  Alex.  Biblioth., 
p.  91.  Jerome,  Prooem.  in  I.  xvi.  ad  Jes.,  calls  the  three  verses  which  the 
Latin  version  interpolates  in  Ps.  xiv.  ocio  versus. 


888  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

The  stiehoi  were  iiunibered  and  summed  up  at  the  end  of  each  book,  as 
was  done  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  also.  Yet  it  is  still  a  question  whether  these 
Euthalian  stiehoi  are  meant,  or  rather  the  older  solid  lines  of  conventional 
length  ;  for  tliis  method  was  doubtless  intended  originally  to  serve  the  pur- 
poses of  the  book-seller,  and  to  furnish  the  buyer,  in  correspondingly  fig- 
ured catalogues  (aTixo/xerp/a)  a  measure  of  the  size  of  the  works. 

Stichonietric  Manuscripts  :  D  Gospels,  E  Acts,  D,  E,  H  Paid.  The  last 
is  a  genuine  Euthalian  codex.  This  origin  is  not  to  be  assumed  for  the 
others,  and  the  stichometry  is  perhaps  conditioned  by  the  accompanying 
Latin  translation. 

Beside  the  stiehoi,  ^7};uaTo  are  also  mentioned,  whose  relation  to  the  former 
is  uncertain.  —  Cf.  on  the  whole  matter,  E.  Reuss,  Art.  Stichometrie  in  Her- 
zog's  Encykl.     [iV.  Y.  Independent,  Feb.  14,  1884.] 

378.  In  order  to  save  costly  space  this  method  was  given  up 
again,  and  copyists  contented  themselves  with  marking  the 
ends  of  the  stiehoi  with  points  or  other  signs.  This  was  the 
beginning  of  the  punctuation  of  the  text,  which  came  in  from 
the  eighth  to  the  tenth  century,  and  for  which  various  very 
simple  signs  were  used,  some  of  which  had  long  been  approved 
by  grammarians.  In  connection  with  this  came  also  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  words.  But  it  was  not  until  the  sixteenth  century, 
after  the  invention  of  printing,  that  this  system  reached  its 
present  development,  and  first  in  some  editions  of  the  classics. 

The  question  whether  punctuation  sprang  out  of  stichometry  or  grew  up 
beside  it  (Hupfeld,  in  the  Theol.  Studien,  1837,  p.  859)  has  not  the  impor- 
tance attributed  to  it,  inasmuch  as  it  is  certain  that  the  latter  is  not  to  be 
derived  from  the  former,  and  that  the  former  only  works  its  way  into  the 
MSS.  in  later  times  and  gradually. 

Punctuation  of  the  Alexandrian  grammarians  by  means  of  three  signs 
(jeKfia  (TTiyfi}],  fxiar]  ariy^ih,  uiroiTTtyfxij  ;  in  Isid.,  Origg.,  I.  19,  dlsdnctio,  at  the 
close  of  the  periodus,  media  distinctio,  for  the  colon  or  larger  clause,  subdistinc- 
tio,  for  the  comma,  or  smaller  clause)  i.  e.,  a  pomt  at  the  top,  in  the  middle, 
and  at  the  bottom  of  the  line.     So  Cod.  E  Gospels. 

Cod.  L  has  crosses  at  the  close.  Earlier  only  single  points  at  certain 
places,  in  A,  B,  C,  D,  Z  also  still  smaller  pauses  and  spaces. 

Cod.  K  Gospels  marks  the  end  of  the  stiehoi  with  points.  F  Paul  sepa- 
rates all  words  by  points  ;  only  later  MSS.  do  this  by  simple  spaces.  G  Paul 
also  has  many  points  to  divide  words,  and  larger  letters  at  the  beginning  of 
the  stiehoi.     Cf.  in  general  Hug,  Einl.,  I.  §  45. 

Our  present  punctuation,  said  to  have  been  invented  by  the  two  Manutii 
at  Venice,  was  not  first  introduced  into  the  N.  T.  by  Robt.  Stephens,  as  was 
formerly  said,  but  appears  in  the  very  first  edition  of  Erasmus. 

J.  F.  Mayer,  De  notis  biblicis  veterum  sensum  S.  S.  indicantibus,  Hamb.  s.  a. 
(also  in  Hist.  vers,  luth.,  p.  203)  ;  G.  F.  Rogall,  De  auctoritate  et  antiquitate 
interpunctionis  in  N.  T.,  Reg.  1734. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted  as  a  peculiarity  of  ancient  writing,  that  while  the 
larger  letters  by  which  new  divisions,  larger  o'r  smaller,  were  designated, 
came  to  stand  regularly  at  tlie  beginning  of  the  line,  or  rather  before  the 
justification,  they  were  not  necessarily  the  first  letters  in  the  sentences,  but 
often  some  other,  just  as  it  happened  after  making  the  lines  of  equal  length 
and  avoiding  spaces,  even  though  they  might  stand  in  the  middle  of  a  word. 

879.  Different  copies  differed  also  in  contents.  Inasmuch 
as  the  New  Testament  canon  grew  up  gradually  out  of  several 


BILINGUAL  MANUSCRIPTS.  389 

separate  collections,  it  is  conceivable  that  in  ancient  times  one 
manuscript  would  contain  this  part,  another  that,  of  the  subse- 
quent whole.  Even  hiter,  when  this  gradual  rise  of  the  New 
Testament  had  been  forgotten,. the  size  of  the  writing  and  the 
thickness  of  the  parchment  usually  caused  its  separation  into 
several  voluuies,  which  naturally  corresponded  to  the  former 
partial  collectiuns.  The  very  cost  of  manufacture,  combined 
with  the  relative  importance  of  the  different  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture, contributed  to  make  very  many  of  the  copies  incomplete. 

Inasmuch  as  on  account  of  the  low  degree  of  education  at  that  period, 
most  of  the  copies  bound  in  more  vohimes  than  one  finally  became  defective, 
as  still  happens  daily  with  so  many  printed  books,  most  of  our  extant  MSS. 
are  only  these  partial  collections,  and  contain  either  the  Gospels  alone,  or 
the  Acts  with  the  Catholic  Epistles,  or  the  thirteen  (fourteen)  Pauline  Epis- 
tles, or  the  Apocalypse.  Of  our  uncial  manuscripts  (beside  Cod.  Sinait., 
§  392)  only  three  (A,  B,  C)  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  condition  presup- 
posing original  completeness.  A  Gospels  and  G  Paul  one  might  be  tempted 
to  regard  as  fragments  of  one  and  the  same  copy.  Even  among  the  cursives 
there  are  not  twenty  complete  (Scholz). 

380.  It  is  likewise  certain  that  the  oldest  copies  contained 
nothing  but  the  Greek  text.  But  the  possessors,  both  learned 
and  unlearned,  doubtless  began  very  early  to  write  in  the  mar- 
gin all  sorts  of  emendations,  explanations,  and  other  annota- 
tions, which  finally  grew  even  to  the  extent  of  proper  commen- 
taries. How  this  led  to  the  corruption  of  the  text  has  already 
been  pointed  out.  The  exegetical  need  naturally  increased 
with  the  distance  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  the  decline  of  knowl- 
edge rendered  a  once  current  explanation  of  an  obscure  or  con- 
troverted passnge  or  rare  expression  more  and  more  unalterable, 
especially  if  it  could  be  supported  by  a  famous  name.  Thus 
the  note  finally  came  to  be  as  sacred  as  the  text  itself,  and  at  a 
certain  period  the  latter  without  the  former  was  scarcely  known 
or  regarded  as  of  tiny  value. 

Codices  puri,  mixti.  —  Scholia,  y\w<T(xat,  cf .  §  359.  —  Even  the  increasing 
scarcity  of  writing  material  may  have  led  to  more  frequent  annotation. 
Examples  of  Codices  with  commentary,  X,  Y. 

381.  For  church  use  in  countries  where  Greek  was  not  un- 
derstood by  the  people,  copies  were  written  in  which  a  trans- 
lation into  the  language  of  the  country  was  placed  beside  the 
original  text  in  a  separate  column,  or  even  inserted  between 
the  lines.  The  latter,  however,  may  have  been  done  rather 
for  exegetical  purposes.  The  former  practice,  more  frequent 
in  the  Latin  West,  though  sometimes  found  also  in  oriental 
countries,  and  not  without  analogy  in  the  synagogue,  was  re- 
peated in  later  times  in  a  different  way,  as  the  ancient  vernac- 
ular in  these  regious  was  obliged  to  give  place  to  a  new  one. 

Codices  bilingues  —  Codd.  grceco-latini,  with  an  interlinear  translation,  e.  g.. 


390  HISTORY   OF   THE    WRITTEN   TEXT. 

A  Gospels,  G  Paul  ;  with  the  version  in  a  separate  column,  T>  Gospels,  E 
Acts,  I),  E.  F  Paul.  —  Cod.  r/neco-copt.,  T.  —  Coptic-Arabic  MSS.  and  the  like 
do  not  belong  here.     Cf.  §  439. 

382.  Originally  the  text  of  each  book  went  on  without 
break  from  beginning  to  end  and  formed  a  whole,  which  might 
be  broken  up  into  its  logical  constituents  by  the  miderstand- 
ing  of  course,  but  not  by  the  eye.  Attentive  readers  easily  dis- 
covered the  divisions  furnished  by  the  contents.  This  was  es- 
pecially true  of  the  Gospels.  In  quoting  or  otherwise  using 
the  apostolic  writings  main  divisions  or  sections  could  be  re- 
ferred to  without  need  of  any  external  designation  of  them. 
Meanwhile,  however,  church  use,  as  well  as  the  convenience 
of  the  reader,  led  gradually  to  actual  divisions  of  various  kinds, 
indicated  in  the  manuscripts. 

In  this  way  is  to  be  explained  the  occurrence  of  the  word  TrepiKon^  in 
Clem.  Alex.  {Strom.,  VII.  750),  K^tpaKaiov  in  Dionys.  Alex.  (Euseb.,  VII. 
25),  capitulum  in  Tertullian  (De  uxor.,  II.  2  ;  De  pudic,  16).  The  first  and 
third  speak  also  of  the  so  easily  separated  divisions  of  the  First  Ej^istle 
to  the  Corinthians  ;  the  other  of  the  separate  scenes  of  the  Apocalypse.  In 
Tertullian,  De  earn.  Chr.,  19,  capitulum  seems  to  mean  a  single  sentence. 
Similar  examples  from  later  authors,  collected  by  Croius,  Obss.  in  N.  T., 
p.  22  ff.  ;  Suicer,  sub  voce.  irepiKOTrrj  and  audyuooais,  avdyvaicrfxa. 

Quite  similar  phenomena  in  the  history  of  classic  literature,  but  especially 
in  the  O.  T.  Cf .  the  expositors  on  Acts  xiii.  33  and  Rom.  xi.  2.  —  Acts  viii. 
32,  nepioxv- 

It  follows  that  the  existing  divisions  have  no  value,  either  for  criticism  or 
for  exegesis,  but  rather  in  the  latter  aspect  must  often  be  wholly  set  aside, 
or  at  least  improved,  as  a  residt  of  labor  often  uncalled  for  and  essentially 
at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  original. 

383.  One  of  these  methods  of  division  of  the  text,  important 
also  for  the  history  of  worship,  is  that  into  church  readings. 
It  is  naturally  later  than  the  custom  of  public  reading  from  the 
apostolic  writings,  although  in  its  beginnings  it  reaches  back 
beyond  the  epoch  of  the  complete  closing  of  the  canon.  The 
edition  of  Euthalius,  mentioned  above,  seems  to  have  been  the 
first  to  divide  the  text  of  the  Epistles  for  this  purpose,  on  a 
very  simple  system,  according  to  the  number  of  Sabbaths  and 
feast-days  in  a  year.  Possibly  it  had  already  been  done  for 
the  Gospels,  so  that  at  this  time  the  whole  New  Testament 
may  have  been  read  in  the  course  of  a  year. 

Euthalius,  I.  c.,  p.  529  :  r^v  rSiv  avayuuxrewv  aKptiSecrTdrrtv  rofxriv  rifiels  nx^oKo- 
ynaaures  avaKecpaAataia-dfieda,  in  which  he  evidently  ascribes  the  invention  to 
himself  only  in  a  certain  respect,  perhaps  not  as  a  new  arrangement  in  place 
of  an  earlier,  but  by  the  side  of  the  earlier  one  (§  294  ?)  of  the  Gospels. 

But  it  should  also  be  considered  that  the  method  of  division  here  s2)oken 
of,  which  certainly  presupposes  the  closing  of  the  canon  (perliaps  with  the 
exception  of  the  Apocalypse),  hardly  represents  the  most  ancient  custom  of 
church  readings,  partly  because  m  ancient  times  writings  not  now  in  the  canon 
were  included  (§  317),  respecting  which  there  was  local  freedom,  and  partly 
because  we  definitely  know  that  certain  books,  especially  of  the  O.  T.,  were 


CHURCH   READINGS  —  LECTIONARIES.  391 

publicly  read  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  in  which  cases,  therefore,  the 
relation  of  the  contents  of  Scripture  to  church  epochs  was  held  in  living  rec- 
ollection, and  correctly,  or  at  least  an  ancient  custom  was  maintained  ;  see 
quotations  from  Chrysostom  for  Constantinople,  from  Augustine  for  Africa, 
etc.,  in  Bingham,  XIV.  3,  p.  63  ;  Rheinwald,  Archdol.,  §  98,  As  the  oldest 
trace  of  selected  pericopes  is  quoted  (correctly  ?)  Chrysostom,  Hojn.  58  in 
Joh.,  (0pp.,  VIII.  342)  :  "one  who  should  read  nothing  at  home,  but  should 
come  to  church,  would  in  the  course  of  a  year  hear  much  of  the  Scripture, 
ov  yap  vvv  jxkv  ravras  avptov  Se  er^pas  avayivwaKO/xev  ypacpas  aA\'  ael  ras  avriis  Kal 
SiaTruvT6s." 

Designations  of  the  divisions  :  TveptKOTral,  avayvdcrnaTa,  avayvJicms,  lectiones. 
Similarly  the  Parasha  of  the  Law  among  the  Jews. 

Euthalius  had  to  provide  for  the  fifty-three  Sundaj's  of  the  leap-year, 
Christmas,  Ascension,  and  perhaps  two  feasts  beside.  Hence  his  division  : 
Acts  sixteen,  James,  1  Peter  and  1  John  two  each,  the  other  four  Catholic 
Epistles  one  each,  Romans  and  1  Corinthians  five  each,  2  Corinthians  four, 
Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Colossians  two  each,  1  and  2  Thessalo- 
nians  one  each,  Hebrews  three,  1  and  2  Timothy,  Titus  and  Philemon  one 
each  ;  altogether  fifty-seven. 

Moreover  the  church  custom  was  certainly  different  in  the  different  patri- 
archates and  dioceses.  Traces  are  found  of  continuous  readings,  in  early 
times  for  a  few  days  of  the  week  (Sundays,  Sabbaths),  later  for  the  others 
also.  The  MSS.  of  the  N.  T.,  especially  the  proper  lectionaries  (§  384),  would 
doubtless  still  yield  much  spoil  upon  closer  investigation,  and  at  the  same 
time,  perhaps,  make  it  possible  to  determine  their  own  age  more  accurately 
in  this  way.     But  this  matter  belongs  to  ecclesiastical  archaeology. 

384.  Since,  however,  the  number  of  the  Christian  feasts  in- 
creased in  inverse  proportion  to  the  time  devoted  to  the  public 
reading  of  the  Scriptures,  they  were  soon  obliged  to  content 
themselves  with  a  selection  of  shorter  readings,  which  were 
then  written  together  in  sepai'ate  books,  called  lectionaries. 
The  more  a  considerable  part  of  the  Bible  was  withdrawn  from 
the  people  by  this  custom,  the  more  important  a  matter  became 
the  choice  of  portions.  Hence  we  find  that  nearly  every  na- 
tional church  made  its  selection  differently.  The  Latin  Church 
was  already  using  such  lectionaries  in  the  fifth  century.  The 
Greek  Church  did  not  obtain  this  gift  until  the  eighth. 

Names  :  e/cAoyaSia,  lectionaria,  fvayyeXidpia,  Trpa^aTr6ffTo\oi.  This  method  of 
division  has  its  analogue  in  the  Haphtara  or  prophetic  sections  of  the  Jews. 

The  oldest  known  collections  are  ascribed  to  the  Gauls,  Claudius  Mamercus 
of  Vienna  and  Musseus  of  Massilia  (middle  of  the  fifth  century).  Gennadius, 
De  script.  eccL,  ch.  Ixxix.,  says  of  the  latter  :  Excerpsit  de  SS.  lectiones  totius 
annifestivis  diebus  aptas.  Whether  the  lectionarium  gallicanum  discovered  by 
Mabillon  was  connected  with  these  works  is  uncertain.  —  Gregory  the  Great 
(end  of  sixth  century)  speaks  of  an  order  of  public  readings  existing  at  Rome 
(JPrcef.  in  homil.  inEvv.),  which  passed  over  into  France  through  Charlemagne, 
afterward  became  general,  and  has  been  inherited  in  substance  by  the  Lutheran 
Church.  The  collection  ascribed  to  Jerome,  known  under  the  name  of  Comes, 
would  be  older  than  all,  were  its  origin  authenticated  in  any  way  (see  Balu- 
zius,  Capitul.  regg.fr.,  II.  1309).  A  summary  of  them  is  given  by  Rheinwald, 
Archdol.,  p.  442. 

The  Greek  Church  had  its  readings  arranged  in  a  peculiar  way,  yet  so  that 
the  text  seems  to  have  been  all  read  in  the  course  of  the  year.     The  details 


392  HISTORY  OF  the  avritten  text. 

are  given,  though  rather  confusedly,  by  Leo  Allatius,  De  II.  ecclesiasticis  grceco- 
rum,  printed  in  Fabricius,  Bihl.  gr.,  V.,  p.  23  if. 

In  complete  manuscripts  (as  often  in  our  ordinary  German  Bibles),  the 
pericopes  are  designated  in  the  margin  with  a  {apxh)  and  t  (reKos),  or  even  by 
more  complete  titles,  together  with  a  recapitulation  (awai^apiov)  at  the  be- 
ginning or  end,  and  a  list  of  feasts  {tJ.-nvoK6yiou).  Cf.  the  smaller  edition  of 
Matthaii,  I.  723  ff..  III.  1  ff.  ;  Scholz,  at  the  end  of  both  volumes  of  his 
edition,  and  De  menoloqiis  duorum  codd.  paris.,  Bonn,  1823. 

Cf.  in  general  Bingham,  Orlgg.,  XIV.  3  ;  Augiisti,  Handh.,  II.  232  ff.  ; 
J.  A.  Scluuid,  De  lectionariis  occ.  et  or.  eccL,  Helmst.  1703  ;  J.  H.  Thamer,  De 
origine  et  dignitate  perkoparum,  Jena,  1716  ;  J.  B.  Carpzov,  Sched.  hist,  de 
pericopis,  L.  1755  ;  J.  C.  Harenberg,  in  Bihl.  hag.,  TV.  ;  Bihl.  brem.  nov.,  II., 
III.;  M.  Rbdiger,  Symholce  ad  evv.  N.  T.,  Hal.  1827  ;  C.  E.  Caspari,  Sur  les 
pericopes,  Str.  1833;  C.  C.  L.  Franke,  in  the  Hall.  Encyld.,  III.  17;  E.  Ranke, 
Das  kirchl.  Perikopensystem  aus  den  dltesten  Urkunden  der  rdm.  Liturgie  dar- 
gelegt,  B.  1847  ;  idem,  Art.  Perikopen,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.;  R.  Bobertag, 
Ev.  Kirchenjahr,  1853  ;  H.  C.  Laatsman,  De  N.  7'.  pericopis  eccles.  earumque 
origine,  etc.,  Traj.  1858.  In  some  of  these  writings  the  subject  is  brought 
down  to  our  own  times,  which  does  not  belong  here,  but  in  the  history  of 
worship. 

385.  Beside  this  ehurcli  division  a  purely  exo<xptical  one  was 
introduced,  into  sections,  as  they  were  called,  which  is  as  old  as 
the  other,  but  never  obtained  especial  favor.  The  first  occasion 
for  it  was  the  harnionistic  treatment  of  the  Gospels  by  Ammo- 
nius  in  the  third  century,  which  made  necessary  a  breakincr  up 
of  the  text  into  numerous  very  small  parts,  in  order  to  facilitate 
the  finding  and  comparison  of  parallel  passages.  This  arrange- 
ment was  perfected  by  Eusebius.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  some  unknown  church  teacher  divided  the  Pauline 
Epistles  into  chapters,  which  Euthalius  noted  in  his  edition  and 
imitated  in  the  remaining  Epistles  and  the  Acts. 

The  Ammonian-Eusebian  division  of  the  Gospels  into  1,162  sections  (this 
is  the  number  given  by  Epiphanius,^ ncoraL,  50,  of  which  Matthew  has  352, 
Mark  235,  Luke  343,  John  232  ;  Suidas,  however,  sub  voc.  titAos,  has 
different  numbers),  refers  to  ten  canons  or  tables  (which  are  printed  in  the 
older  editions  of  the  N.  T.,  e.  g.,  Erasmus,  1519  ff.,  Stephens,  1553,  and 
others,  and  now  introduced  by  Tischendorf  also),  the  first  of  which  designates 
the  sections  common  to  all  four  Evangelists,  in  parallel  columns,  by  their 
respective  figures,  the  next  three  those  found  in  but  three  Gospels,  etc. 
These  figures  are  then  repeated  in  the  margin  of  the  text.  Cf.  Wetstein, 
Prolegg.,  183  ;  Marsh,  Additions  to  Michaelis,  I.  469  ;  Tischendorf,  Prolegg. 
to  Ed.'  VIII. 

Euthalian  chapters  (Ke^dXaia)  in  connection  with  the  table  of  contents 
attached  to  each  book  (eK-^ecru),  hi  t<Sv  ao<l>u>T6.Toov  tlu\  koI  (ptAoxpiffrw  naT^pwy 
rinuv  irewovrjfxevri  (in  Zacagni,  p.  528.  Is  Theodore  of  Mopsnestia  meant  ?)  : 
Acts,  40  ;  James,  6  ;  1  Peter,  8  ;  2  Peter,  4  ;  1  John,  7  ;  2  and  3  John,  each 
1;  Jude,  4;  Romans,  19;  1  Corinthians,  9;  2  Corinthians,  11;  Galatians,  12; 
Ephesians,  10  ;  Philippians,  7  ;  Colossians,  10  ;  1  Thessalonians,  7  ;  2  Tl-.es- 
salonians,  6  ;  Hebrews,  22  ;  1  Timothy,  18  ;  2  Timothy,  9;  Titus,  6  ;  Phile- 
mon, 2.     Evidently  not  of  equal  length. 

The  Apocalypse  was  divided  by  Andrew  of  Cesarea  in  Cappadoeia,  in  his 
Commentary,  into  24  ^^701  and  72  Ke<pd\aia.  See  Matthsei,  Editio  minor,  Apoc, 
p.  9  S. 


AMMONIAN  SECTIONS  —  CHAPTERS.  393 

These  numbers  were  never  used  in  quotation. 

C.  F.  Sinner,  De  distinctionibus  textus  N.  T.  in  capita  versus,  etc.,  L.  1694. 

Indices  or  tables  of  contents  for  chajiters  (iKsyxoi,  etc.)  are  found  even  in 
Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.,  I.,  in  Aulus  Gellius  and  Josephus,  and  the  first  speaks  of  a 
predecessor  in  this  method. 

Cod.  B,  Vaticanus,  has  an  altogether  peculiar  chapter  division,  which  has 
nothing-  in  common  either  in  the  Gospels  with  Eusebius  and  Ammonius,  or  in 
the  Pvpistles  with  Euthalius.  The  Epistles  are  treated  as  a  single  continuous 
book.  —  The  details  of  the  peculiar  chapter  divisions  of  the  ancient  oriental 
versions  belong  imder  the  special  history  of  these  latter. 

386.  After  the  Gospels  had  obtained  a  similar  division, 
perhaps  in  the  sixth  century,  there  was  finally  accomj)lished  in 
the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  a  uniform,  but  unfortunately  not 
better,  work  upon  the  whole  Bible,  which  is  usually  ascribed 
to  Cardinal  Hugo,  known  by  his  monastic  name  of  St.  Carus. 
He  is  said  to  have  undertaken  it  for  the  purpose  of  a  Latin 
Concordance.  The  division  seems  almost  to  have  had  in  view 
uniformity  of  length  rather  than  the  nature  of  the  contents. 
In  this  respect  it  is  sometimes  too  long,  again  too  short,  rarely 
fitting,  even  in  the  large,  and  often  totally  inappropriate  and 
destructive  of  the  sense.  Yet  custom  has  rendered  it  unalter- 
able. These  our  present  chapters  came  into  the  Greek  copies 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  but  are  not  found  in  all  the  older 
printed  editions. 

The  TtrAoi,  breves,  of  the  Gospels,  of  whose  date  and  origin  nothing  certain 
can  be  said  (Matthew,  68  ;  Mark,  48  ;  Luke,  83  ;  John,  18),  are  properly 
headings  of  columns,  with  a  general  smmnary  (breviariian)  prefixed,  figures 
in  the  margin,  and  summation  at  the  end  {capitulatio,  avaKecpaKaluats^,  in 
connection  ^vitli  which  the  KepdXata  are  often  reckoned  up  also  ;  e.  g..  Cod.  L. 
Under  the  same  head,  doubtless,  belongs  a  numbering  of  the  Epistles  which 
was  likewise  in  use  in  the  ]\iiddle  Ages,  and  in  both  languages  :  e.  g.,  1  Cor. 
67  ;  2  Cor.  27,  etc. 

On  Hugo,  see  also  §§  329,  529.  Whether  he  was  the  first  to  undertake 
this  work,  or  how  far  he  undertook  it  alone,  is  uncertain.  See  Jahn,  Einl., 
I.  3G8. 

The  Greek  MSS.  which  have  liis  chapter  numbers  may  have  received  them 
in  the  West,  whither  they  had  been  brought  in  great  numbers  by  fugitive 
Greeks. 

Erasmus  placed  them  in  the  margin  of  the  Latin  translation,  but  not  in 
the  Greek  text,  in  all  his  editions,  and  beside  them  the  older  numbering  ; 
but  the  latter  only  in  the  Gospels  and  some  of  the  Epistles  ;  the  Complu- 
tensian  Polyglot,  however,  introduces  them  everywhere.  The  Aldine  edition 
of  1518  and  the  Hagena.u  of  1521  have  neither  chapters  nor  even  pauses. 
Stephens  printed  m  his  editions  both  the  Greek  and  the  Latin  numbering. 
The  oldest  purely  Greek  editions  which  have  the  chapters  are  Basle  and 
Strassburg,  1524.  But  two  manual  editions  appeared  at  Paris  as  late  as  1549 
without  chapters. 

It  should  be  remarked  further  that  the  chapter  division  has  varied  in 
many  passages,  and  still  does  to  some  extent.  Manuscripts  (Latin,  French, 
Romance)  do  not  altogether  agree,  especially  in  Chronicles,  Ezekiel,  Malachi, 
Psalms,  etc.  An  account  is  given  of  very  strange  variations  by  E.  Reuss,  in 
the  Revue  de  theoL,  IV.,  p.  6  ff. 


394  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

The  a.i>aKe<pa\alujais,  or  Greek  chapter  index,  is  also  found  in  older  folio 
editions ;  Erasmus,  1511)  if.,  Stejiheus,  1550,  Wechel,  IGOl,  and  in  some 
smaller  ones. 

387.  Finally,  the  smallest  and  latest  division  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  that  into  verses,  is  simply  an  imitation 
of  a  Jewish  arrangement  connected  with  the  introduction  of 
the  system  of  accentuation  into  the  Hebrew  text.  It  is  not 
altogether  clear  how  it  found  its  way  tlience  to  the  Christians. 
It  is  only  certain  that  it  was  first  applied  to  tlie  Latin  Bible, 
like  the  chapter  division.  The  Greek  manuscripts  do  not  have 
it,  nor  the  older  editions  of  the  New  Testament.  It  appears  in 
printing  about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  has 
remained  from  that  time  on.  Most  editions  divide  the  text 
into  paragraphs  according  to  it,  although  it  is  essentially  ab- 
surd, often  erroneous,  and  even  at  the  best  not  necessary  to  the 
understanding,  but  rather  a  hindrance  to  it. 

The  verse  division  is  certainly  much  niore  appropriate  to  the  spirit  of 
Hebrew  speech,  especially  in  poetry,  though  even  here  it  is  often  erroneously 
applied,  and  in  simple  prose  it  unnecessarily  breaks  up  the  text.  In  the 
N.  T.  the  Pauline  Epistles,  in  particidar,  are  often  rendered  unintelligible  by 
this  means  (especially  by  the  beginning  of  a  new  paragraph  with  each 
verse). 

A  method  of  division  by  means  of  letters,  much  used  in  older  printing, 
preceding  the  verse  division,  is  ascribed  in  its  origin  to  Cardinal  Hugo,  who 
is  said  to  have  introduced  it  for  the  j^urpose  of  convenient  reference  for  his 
Latin  Concordance.  Two  other  Dominicans,  John  of  Derlington  and  Richard 
of  Stavenesby,  then  added  the  fragments  of  the  text,  and  in  this  form  the 
work  was  called  by  the  head  of  the  order  at  Paris  the  Concordance  of 
St.  James.  In  this  the  first  seven  letters  of  the  alphabet,  A-G,  were  placed 
in  the  margin  at  equal  distances  apart.  About  1310  Conrad  of  Halberstadt 
(De  Media  Civitate,  generally  called  De  Alemania)  improved  this  system  by 
using  for  the  shorter  chapters  of  Hugo  only  four  letters,  A-D,  and  abbre- 
viating the  quotations  from  the  text.  This  latter  edition  was  printed  about 
1475  and  frequently  afterward  (Quetif  and  Echard,  Scriptt.  Ord.  Prced.,  I., 
p.  203  ;  Fabricius,  Bihl.  lat.  me.d.  cetatis,  sub  voce  Conradus  ;  Buddeus,  Isagoge, 
ed.  1730,  p.  1543;  Riederer,  Nachrichten,  I.  3,  p.  247).  This  division  ap- 
pears in  Latin,  German,  and  French  Bibles,  though  not  all,  from  1491  on 
(Biblia  summata,  dlstincta,  utriusque  Test.  Concordantiis  illustr.,  Bas.,  Froben, 
8°),  in  the  N.  T.  some  years  earlier.  It  disappears  about  1550.  Of  Greek 
editions  of  the  N.  T.  the  Complutensian  and  the  larger  Stephens  have  it. 

The  verses  (not  to  be  confounded  with  the  ancient  versus,  §  377)  first 
occur  in  non-Hebrew  printing,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  the  Vulgate  printed  by 
Robt.  Stephens  in  1548  ;  in  the  Greek  N.  T.  in  his  edition  of  1551  (§  402), 
numbered  and  paragraphed.  But  there  are  many  later  editions  which  do 
not  have  them  ;  so  the  Froschauer,  the  Brylinger,  the  Leipzig  editions  of 
Vogelin  and  his  successors,  the  Basle  editions  of  Osten,  the  first  Crispins, 
i.  e.,  nearly  all  which  may  be  reckoned  of  the  Erasmian  family,  and  some  of 
the  Stephanie.  The  paragraphing  of  the  verses  did  not  become  prevalent 
until  the  period  of  the  textus  receptus,  through  Beza  and  the  Elzevirs. 

388.  Among  the  external  alterations  of  the  text  belong 
finally  the  inscriptions,  that  is  to  say,  certain  literary  and  his- 


VERSES  —  SUPERSCRIPTIONS  —  SUBSCRIPTIONS.  395 

torical  notes  on  the  books,  which  were  originally  wanting,  but 
gradually  became  almost  integral  parts  of  them.  Among  these 
we  reckon  tirst  the  titles,  which  evidently  do  not  come  from  the 
authors,  but  which  must  naturally  have  been  introduced  into 
the  copies  as  soon  as  several  books  were  brought  mto  one  col- 
lection. They  ai'e  based  partly  upon  the  contents,  partly  upon 
tradition,  are  mutually  related,  and  in  the  course  of  time  have 
become  more  and  more  extended. 

The  later  introduction  of  the  titles  is  evident  (1)  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  ;  e.  g.,  'EttlcttoAt]  irpcoTr] .  .  . ;  (2)  from  their  inappropriateness  ;  e.  g.,  irpd^ns 
T&ic  anoffToAotiv,  cf .  Acts  i.  1 ;  (3)  from  the  later  usages  in  them ;  e.  g.,  'laiawov  rod 
6io\6yov ;  perhaps  also  irphs  'E0palovs.  Even  the  simple  EiiayyfKiov  cannot  he 
original  (as  De  Wette,  II.,  §  32,  and  others  maintain,  Chrysostom,  Horn.  I. 
in  Matth.,  cf.  Horn.  I.  in  Rom.,  0pp.,  VII.  4  ;  IX.  429).  For  only  with  Kara 
MaT0.,  etc.,  would  it  have  the  genuine  ancient  sense.  (4)  From  the  testimony 
of  the  ancient  writers,  e.  g.  TertuUian,  Cont.  Marc,  IV.  2,  V.  11,  17,  in  the 
first  passage  of  Luke,  in  the  others  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Cf.  D. 
Salthen,  De  inscr.  epp.  paid.,  Reg.  1741. 

On  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Hebrews  in  particular,  see  §§  121, 
153. 

Examples  of  expansion  :  Kara  ^aTBaiov,  Cod.  B  ;  EvayjiKiov  Kara  Mard., 
usually;  Tb  Kara  MarQa^ov  ayiov  evayyekiov,  later  ;  "Apx^rat  rh  .  .  .  the  latest. 

Tlphs  'Paifxaiovs  —  irphs  'P.  iwiaroXi]  —  irphs  'P.  eTr.  TlavXov  —  Tov  aylov  an.  U.  ivr. 
TTphs  'P. 

'ATTOKaAv^pLs  'laidi/vov,  Cod.  C.  —  Cod.  17  adds  rod  Oioxiyov.  —  Cod.  B  adds 
Ka\  fvayyeXiarov.  —  'Att.  rov  aylov  air.  Ka\  evayy.  'Ico.  rov  dioAoyov,  37.  —  30 
adds  ivSo^ordrou  irapQevov  r)yaw7)fxivov  iiriarriOiou.  —  IG  adds  %i'  ip  Uar/xcf)  r'p 
vfiaco  iOedaaro.  —  'Irjaov  Xp.  airoK.  Sodelaa  rqi  6eo\.  'loodvvri,  26. 

389.  Later,  variable,  and  often  erroneous  besides,  are  the 
subscriptions  which  were  added  to  each  book.  At  first  they 
simply  repeated  the  title,  but  there  was  soon  added  to  them 
information  about  the  author,  time  and  place  of  writing,  and 
similar  matters.  We  cannot  say  certainly  how  they  finally 
obtained  a  fixed  form,  but  they  are  evidently  notes  of  ancient 
fathers,  based  partly  on  doubtful  tradition,  partly  on  still  more 
doubtful  exegesis,  and  are  devoid  of  all  historical  value. 

Their  later   origin  appears   (1)  from  their  absence  in  the  older  MSS.; 

(2)  from  the  incorrectness  of  their  statements  ;  e.  g.,  Mark  :  iypdcpi)  pw/xaiarl 
4v  'Piifiri  ;   Galatians  :    iypdcpv  airo  'Pu>^lVSi   1  Cor.:   airh  ^tXiTTTTUv  5ia  .  .  .  Tifx-odeov  ; 

(3)  from  later  geographical  designations  :  1  Tim.  ^pvyia  iraKanavl]  ;  Tit.  : 
Ni/c((7roA.ij  Trjs  MaKeSoi'las ;  (4)  from  the  disagreement  of  different  MSS.  ; 
e.  ^r.,  Matthew  :  i^iUdr)  Jy8pai"(rTi,  ■^pjUTjceueTj  5e  uttJ) 'Ia«:co;3ou ;  others,  iiwh 'ludvvov. 
John  :  iypdcpf)  iv  nar/xw;  others,  ore  airh  rrjs  iv  IT.  i^oplas  iTravrjAdev  ;  others,  inl 
Aofieriauov ;  others,  iir\  Tpatavov,  with  which  is  connected  in  several  codices, 
the  very  remarkable  traditional  note  :  /xerh  A)3'  xpofovs  rrj^  rod  Xptirrov  ava- 
\r]\pfcos,  which  certainly  cannot  refer  to  Trajan,  hardly  to  the  Gospel,  but  may 
possibly  to  the  Apocalypse,  and  so  contain  a  trace  of  a  correct  explanation  of 
the  latter  ;  (5)  from  the  addition  of  later  ecclesiastical  views  :  2  Tim.  and 
Tit. :  .  .  .  Trpairov  iiriaKonov  x^i-porovriQivra.  Cf .  J.  C.  Hertzog,  De  subscriptt.  ep. 
pauL,  L.  1703. 

Examples  of  expansion  •  Tlphs  'Paifxalovs,  A,  C,  D,  al.  —  Trphs  'P.  eVf  Afo-flrj,  G. — 


396  HISTORY   OF   THE   WRITTEN   TEXT. 

.  .  .  iypd(pr]  awh  KopivBov  B.  —  18  adds  Sta  ^otfir]s-  —  80  adds  SiaKSuov.  —  rec. 
adds  TTJs  iv  Kiyxp^ai^  €KK\r](rlas- 

Examples  of  exegetical  conjectures  :  2  Cor.  :  5ia  Tirov  kuI  Aovku  from 
viii.  17  f.  •  2  Tim.  :  ore  iK  Sevr^pou  irapf(TT7\  YlavKos  t<^  Kaiaapi  Nepoofi  from  iv. 
IG;  Heb.:  airh  'IraA^as  Sio  Ti/iofle'oy  from  xiii.  23  f.;  in  the  last  case  against  the 
text. 

The  richest  source  of  such  introductory  notes,  though  not  the  oldest,  is 
the  Pseudo-Athanasian  Synopsis  SS.  (§  320).  At  the  time  of  Eiithalius 
(Zacagni,  p.  51G)  these  notes  had  become  quite  stereotyjied  as  respects  the 
Paidine  E2)istles,  and  are  the  same  which  have  been  preserved  in  our  printed 
editions.  They  came  into  these  through  Erasmus  (not  through  the  Com- 
plutensian  edition  and  its  successors),  have  maintained  themselves  in  science 
along  witli  the  textus  receptus,  and  have  been  partly  bracketed  and  partly 
rejected  by  modern  criticism. 

390.  This  is  the  state  in  which  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  when,  in  Germany  and  soon  also  in  other  Christian 
lands,  books  began  to  be  printed.  The  circumstance  that  this 
art  was  discovered  in  the  West,  and  for  a  long  time  only  prac- 
ticed there,  was  not  favorable  to  the  New  Testament.  No  one 
here  had  any  great  desire  to  read  it  in  the  original  tongue,  and 
consequently  more  than  half  a  century  passed  away  before  any 
one  thought  of  preparing  a  printed  Greek  edition.  Yet  this 
delay  brought  no  disadvantage,  because  neither  then  nor  for  a 
long  time  afterward  was  the  learned  world  able  to  obtain  the 
requisite  aids  for  a  restoration  of  the  text,  or  to  make  proper 
use  of  them.  The  very  persons  who  most  of  all  should  have 
done  so,  tlie  proper  Humanists,  appear  to  have  troubled  them- 
selves least  of  all  about  the  Scriptures  ;  and  among  the  theolo- 
gians at  first  scholastic  customs,  later  practical  necessities,  were 
predominant. 

On  the  printing  of  the  Bible  in  Latin  and  modern  languages,  which  pre- 
ceded the  original,  see  §  4G8  ff. 

As  bibliographical  curiosities  may  be  mentioned  an  Aldine  edition  of  the 
poems  of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  1504,  in  which  the  first  six  chapters  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  are  inserted  in  a  very  peculiar  way  (Adler,  in  the  Repertor., 
18,  p.  150) ;  and  earlier  a  Greek  Psalter  of  148G  (perhaps  earlier  ?)  m  which, 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  Psalms  of  Zachariah  and 
Mary  (Lk.  i.,  ii.)  are  found,  among  others.  Otherwise  no  part  of  the  N.  T. 
was  printed  before  1514  (§  399). 

391.  Antiquity  had  bequeathed  to  modern  times  three  kinds 
of  aids  for  the  attainment  of  the  end  proposed,  all  of  which, 
however,  could  not  make  up  for  the  lack  of  the  original  docu- 
ments. These  are  the  manuscripts,  the  versions,  and  the 
quotations  in  other  authors.  The  sum-total  of  all  these  sources 
and  of  the  readings  derived  from  them  for  the  establishment  of 
the  text  constitutes  the  critical  apparatus.  This  has  gained 
vastly,  since  the  first  attempts  of  the  sixteenth  century,  not  only 
in  external  richness,  but  especially  also  in  internal  sifting,  and 
has  now  attained,  in  both  these  respects,  such  a  degree  of  com- 


CRITICAL  APPARATUS  — MANUSCRIPTS.  397 

pleteness  that,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  longer 
prospect  of  new  discoveries  of  importance,  possible  future  prog- 
ress of  New  Testament  textual  criticism  is  to  be  expected,  not 
from  the  increase  of  this  apparatus,  but  only  from  the  following 
out  of  new  principles  in  its  use. 

Catalog-lies  of  the  extant  (already  used  or  still  to  be  used)  Subsidia  critica 
are  to  be  found  in  all  important  critical  editions  ;  the  more  recent  more 
complete  than  the  older  ;  see  the  appropriate  sections  below.  See  also 
Semler,  Vorarbe'dung  zur  Hermeneutik,  Fts.  III.,  IV.  ;  Beck,  Monogrammata 
herm.,  p.  42  ff . ;  R.  Simon,  Diss,  critique  sur  les  principaux  actes  MSS.;  in  his 
Hist,  des  commentateurs  ;  also  German,  in  the  Halle  Sammlung,  I.,  II. ;  Eich- 
horn,  Einl,  V.  168-247. 

392.  The  most  direct,  most  satisfactory,  and  altogether  most 
complete  sources  of  knowledge  are  the  manuscripts.  Their  age, 
as  well  as  their  accuracy  and  the  quality  of  the  original  from 
which  they  have  been  derived,  determines  their  relative  value. 
Yet  even  the  agreement  of  all  these  qualities  can  never  have 
absolutely  decisive  weight  in  favor  of  the  correctness  or  ac- 
ceptance of  a  reading,  since  even  the  oldest  of  our  manuscripts 
date  from  a  time  when  the  text  had  ah-eady  suffered  all  the 
above  mentioned  kinds  of  corruption.  Only  a  few  manuscripts 
have  been  preserved  from  the  middle  centuries ;  those  older 
than  the  seventh  are  wholly  isolated,^  and  most  of  both  classes 
only  in  fragments.  The  greater  number  of  those  extant  belong 
to  the  time  of  the  Crusades,  or  are  even  later. 

The  age  of  the  manuscript  (to  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  charac- 
teristics mentioned  in  §  373  If.)  does  not  decide  the  age  of  the  text  contained 
in  it.  Late  manuscripts  may  have  been  taken  from  very  old  ones,  older 
ones  from  those  immediately  preceding  them.  The  age  of  a  text  is  only 
determined,  with  great  difficulty  and  little  certainty,  from  the  comparison  of 
many  manuscripts,  especially  with  reference  to  the  place  of  their  origin 
(§  370). 

Since  Wetstein  (§  408)  older  methods  have  been  given  up  and  the  extant 
codices  have  a  uniform  designation  ;  i.  e.  (1)  those  written  with  uncials  by 
the  capital  letters  of  the  Roman  alphabet,  and  after  these  by  the  differently 
formed  letters  of  the  Greek  ;  (2)  those  written  in  cursive  letters  by  Arabic 
numerals.  In  both,  inconveniently,  the  series  begins  four  times  (according 
to  §  379,  note),  so  that  a  complete  N.  T.  often  has  four  different  numbers, 
beside  its  library  number  ;  e.  g.,  Codex  regius  47  (i  e.  in  the  National  Library 
at  Paris)  is  No.  18  in  the  Gospels,  No.  113  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles, 
No.  132  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  No.  51  in  the  Apocalypse.  So  also  there 
are  two  series  of  Arabic  numerals  for  the  simple  lectionaries  with  pericopes 
from  the  Gospels  or  Epistles. 

The  original  reading  of  a  codex  (*)  is  distinguished  from  an  emendation 
introduced  somewhat  later,  often  by  another  hand  (**)  ;  lectio  a  prima,  a 
secunda  mann  (§  365). 

The  number  of  manuscripts  now  known,  catalogued  most  completely  by 
Scholz  (Prolegg.,  I.,  ch.  6  ;  XL,  ch.  11)  and  Tischendorf  (Prolegg.  ad  Ed.  VII. 
[Now  superseded  by  Ed.  VIIL,  1864-72,  2  vols.,  with  a  volume  of  Prole- 
gomena by  Gregory  and  Abbot,  1883]),  amounts  (exclusive  of  very  small 
fragments)  for  the  Gospels  to  26  uncials,  about  480  cursives,  and  about  180 


398  HISTORY  OF  THE   WRITTEN  TEXT. 

lectionaries,  for  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles  8  of  the  ftrst  aucl  about  190  of 
the  second  class,  for  Paul  9  of  the  first  and  about  250  of  the  second,  for  the 
Apocalypse  3  of  the  first  and  about  90  of  the  second  ;  beside  about  GO  lec- 
tionaries with  pericopes  from  the  Epistles.  Tliis  whole  mass  of  about  1,300 
numbers  really  reduces,  however,  on  account  of  dujdicate  numbering,  to 
pex'haps  950,  aside  from  the  fact  that  many,  and  nearly  all  the  more 
important  are  more  or  less  defective.  [Westcott  and  Hort,  Introduction  and 
Appendix  to  their  N.  T.  in  Greek,  forming  Vol.  II.,  Lond.  1881,  N.  Y.  1882  ; 
Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  98  if.  ;  the  whole  number  of  distinct 
uncial  MSS.  now  known  (1883)  is  83.] 

[I.  Primary  Uncials  :  — 

[S,  Codex  Sinaiticus :  formerly  in  the  Convent  of  INIount  Sinai,  now  in  the 
Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  A  complete  Greek  Bible,  with  Barnabas 
and  Hennas,  the  Acts  after  Paul,  Hebrews  before  Timothy.  Dates  from 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  written  on  fine  parchment,  in  large 
uncials,  364^  leaves,  13^  inches  wide  by  14|  inches  high,  four  columns  to 
the  page,  48  lines  to  the  column.     Discovered  by  Tischendorf,  in  February, 

1859.  See,  for  the  story  of  its  discovery,  Tischendorf 's  Reise  in  den  Orient, 
1846  ;  Aus  dem  Jieil.  Lande,  1862,  §§  9,  10,  15,  25  ;  Notitia  Codicis  Sinaitici, 

1860,  and  the  Prolegomena  to  his  editions  of  the  MS.,  1862  and  1865  ;  also 
his  controversial  pamphlets,  Die  Anfechtungen  der  Sinaihihel,  1863,  and 
Wajfen  der  Finsterniss  wider  die  Sinaihihel,  1863  ;  most  fully,  in  his  Die 
Sinaihihel,  ihre  Entdeckimg,  Herausgahe,  und  Erwerhung,  Leipz.  1871.  See  in 
general,  on  the  MS.,  Notitia  ed.  Codicis  Sin.,  L.  1860, 4° ;  Muralt,  in  the  Studien, 
1860,  IV.;  Wieseler,i6i(/em,1861,IV.,  1864,  III.;  Buttmann,  in  Hilgenfeld's 
ZeitscJir.,  1864,  IV.,  1866,  II.  ;  Hilgenfeld,  ibidem,  1864,  I.,  II.  ;  Dr.  Ezra 
Abbot,  Comparative  Antiquity  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS.,  in  the  Journal 
of  the  Am.  Oriental  Soc,  X.,  1872,  pp.  189  ff.,  602.  — Printed  at  Leipzig,  and 
published  at  St.  Petersburg,  at  the  expense  of  Alexander  II.,  from  type 
specially  cast  for  the  purpose,  in  four  folio  volumes.  Bibliorum  Codex 
Sinaiticus  Petropolitanus.  Auspiciis  augustissimis  Imperatoris  Alexandri  II. 
ex  tenebris  protraxit  in  Europam  transtulit  ad  iuvandas  atque  illustrandas  sacras 
litteras  edidit  Constantinus  Tischendorf,  Petropoli,  1862.  Vol.  I.  contains  the 
dedication  to  the  Emperor,  the  Prolegomena,  Notes  on  the  corrections  by 
later  hands,  and  twenty-one  fac-simile  plates  ;  vols.  II.  and  III.  contain  the 
LXX.,  and  vol.  IV.  the  N.  T.,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  a  part  of 
the  Shepherd  of  Hernias.  —  The  N.  T.,  together  with  Barnabas  and  the 
fragment  of  Hernias,  was  separately  edited  by  Tischendorf  in  smaller  type, 
L.  1863,  4°,  in  four  columns  ;  also  in  ordinary  type,  continuous  lines,  L.  1865, 
8°.  —  Tischendorf,  Conlatio  critica  cod.  Sin.  c.  textu  Elzevir.,  1869  ;  Scrivener, 
Full  Collation  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.  with  the  Received  Text  of  the  Netv  Testament, 
Canib.  1864,  2d  ed.,  1867.  —  See  SchafP,  Com.panion  to  the  Greek  Test., 
p.  103  fe.  —  A  part  of  this  MSS.  (portions  of  the  LXX.)  had  already  been 
published  as  Codex  Friderico-Augustanus,  1846,  fol.] 

A.  Alexandrinus,  a  Greek  Bible  with  some  gaps  (especially  in  Matthew 
and  2  Corinthians),  and  two  epistles  of  Clement  (§  235),  presented  by  the 
Patriarch  Cyril  Lucar  to  Charles  I.  in  1628  ;  in  the  British  Museum  at 
London  ;  without  division  of  words  or  punctuation,  with  sections  in  the 
Gospels  only,  perhaps  of  the  fifth  century.  The  N.  T.,  edited  in  fac-simile 
by  C.  G.  Woide,  1786,  fol.  (Thence  Woid'ii  notitia  cod.  Alex,  cum  omnibus  var. 
lectt.  recudi  cur.  G.  L.  Spohn,  L.  1788.)  Improved  edition  with  ordinary  type 
(the  gaps  supplied  without  comment  from  the  printed  text  of  Stephens  ! ), 
B.  H.  Cowper,  Lond.  1860,  8°;  Monographs  by  C.  Oudin  (in  his  Diss.),  J.  A. 
Dietelmair,  Halle,  1739  ;  J.  A.  Osiander,  Tub.  1742  ;  J.  S.  Senilcr,  Tub. 
1759  ;  F.  A.  Stroth,  Tiib.  1771.  Cf.  also  Grabe  and  Breitinger  in  their 
Prolegg.  to  the  LXX.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Handh.,  I.  362  ;  II.  194  ;  Miehaelis, 
N.  Bibl,  II.  1  ;   Cramer,  Beitriige,  III.  101  ;   Eichhorn,  Bibl,  V.  609.     [A 


CEITICAL  APPARATUS  — MANUSCRIPTS  — DESCRIPTION.    399 

beautiful  photograpliic  fac-siniile  editiou  issued  by  the  Trustees  of  the  British 
Museum,  Load.  1879.] 

B.  Vaticanus  (No.  1209),  a  whole  Bible,  lost  from  Heb.  ix.  14,  so  that  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse  are  wanting  ;  regarded  as  the  oldest 
extant  MS.  of  the  N.  T.,  placed  by  Tischendorf  in  the  fourth  century  ;  with- 
out division  of  words  or  punctuation,  in  tlu'ee  columns  ;  accents  by  a  second 
hand.  From  tliis  MS.  most  of  the  editions  of  the  LXX.  A  fac-siiiiile  in 
Bianchini,  I.  492,  and  by  Tiscliendorf  in  the  Studien,  1847,  I.,  p.  129  ff.  — 
Monographs  by  J.  S.  Hichtel,  Jena,  1734  ;  Osiander  (above)  ;  A.  F.  Ruck- 
ersfelder  (in  Velthusen,  Sylloge,  III.,  IV.)  ;  J.  L.  Hug,  Freib.  1810.  Cf. 
Michaelis,  Bibl,  23, 138  ;  Eichhorn,  Bibl,  II.  373  ;  III.  263  ;  Gabler's  Journal, 
11.  414  ;  P.  Buttmanu,  in  the  Studien,  1860,  II.  ;  C.  Vercellone,  Rome, 
1860.  —  Of  the  N.  T.  we  possess  even  yet  only  collations  in  part  not  wholly 
trustworthy,  in  part  incomplete  (especially  Birch,  §  417,  Bentley,  in  the 
Appendix  to  Woide's  Alexandrinus).  The  edition  of  A.  Mai,  Rome,  1858, 
5  vols.,  4°,  is  nothing  less  than  dijilomatically  exact,  but  the  different  hands 
to  be  traced  in  the  manuscript  are  not  carefully  distinguished,  and  all  the 
gaps,  even  the  very  small  ones,  and  those  critically  important,  are  supplied 
from  other  MSS.  Thence  the  N.  T.  separately,  Lond.  and  Leipz.  1859,  8° 
(Title-page  edition,  N.  Y.  1860)  ;  also,  with  a  thorougli  criticism  of  the 
Roman  edition,  yet  making  much  less  claun  to  strict  diplomatic  accuracy, 
A.  Kuenen  and  C.  G.  Cobet,  Levd.  1860.  Cf.  A.  Buttmann,  in  the  Studien, 
1862, 1.,  and  in  general  Tischendorf,  Ed.  VII.,  1. 136  ff.  [VIII.,  I.] ;  Bunsen's 
Bibelwerk,  I.  381.  Also  an  edition  of  the  N.  T.  by  Tischendorf,  L.  1867,  on 
which  Taylor  in  the  Theol.  Kevieiu,  1867,  p.  351.  Tischendorf  makes 
emendations  in  it  even  in  the  work  of  1869  immediately  to  be  mentioned. 
[A  quasi  fac-simile  edition  of  the  whole  MS.  by  Vercellone  (f  1869),  J. 
Cozza,  and  Gaetano  Sergio,  Roiue,  1868-1881,  in  six  vols.  fol.  The  full  title 
is  as  follows  :  Bibliorum  Sacrorum  Grcecus  Codex  Vaticanus  auspice  Pio  IX. 
Poniifice  Maximo  collatis  studiis  Caroli  Vercellone  Sodalis  Barnabitce  et  Josephi 
Cozza  Monachi  Basiliani  editus,  Romse,  typis  et  impensis  S.  Congregationis 
de  Propaganda  Fide.  The  first  four  vols,  contain  the  LXX.,  the  fifth  the 
N.  T.,  the  sixth  prolegomena  and  commentaries  by  Canon  Fabiani  and 
J.  Cozza.     See  Schaif,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  Il3  ff.] 

C.  Ephrcemi  (Regius  9),  about  200  leaves  of  a  whole  Bible,  the  writing  of 
which  has  been  erased  and  written  over  again  with  Greek  works  of  Ephreni 
the  Syrian.  Edited  by  Tischendorf,  L.  1843,  2  vols.  4°.  There  is  much 
more  of  the  N.  T.  remaining  than  of  the  Old,  but  nothmg  complete.  Of  the 
fifth  century,  continuous  lines,  otherwise  like  A,  and  with  later  corrections. 
—  Cf .  Michaelis,  Bibl,  IX.  142  ;  Fleck,  in  the  Studien,  1841,  I.  126.  _ 

D.  (Gospels,  Acts.)  Cantabrigiensis,  presented  by  Beza  to  Cambridge  in 
1581.  Gospels  and  Acts  in  Greek  and  Latin,  wdth  some  gaps,  partly  sup- 
plied by  a  later  hand,  probably  written  in  France.  Of  the  sixth  century. 
Fac-simile  by  T.  Kipling,  Cam.  1793,  2  vols.  fol.  ;  Semler,  Vindicice  text.,  p. 
15;  D.  Sclmlz,  De  codice  cant.,  Bresl.  1827.  Cf.  Biancliini,  I.  481;  Michaelis, 
Bibl.,  III.  199  ;  Eichhorn,  Bibl.,  V.  704  ;  Middleton  in  the  appendix  to  his 
work  On  the  Greek  Article,  Lond.  1808  ;  Credner,  Beitrdge,  I.  452.  [Edited, 
more  accurately,  by  Dr.  Scrivener,  in  common  type,  with  Introduction  and 
critical  notes,  Camb.  1864,  4°.     See  Schaff,  Companion,  p.  122  ff.] 

[II.  Secondary  Uncials  :  — 

B.  Vaticanus  (No.  2066),  the  Apocalypse  alone,  of  the  eighth  century, 
printed  in  Tischendorf's  Monumenta  sacr.  ined.,  L.  1846,  4°,  and  again,  sepa- 
rately, in  1869.  [A  few  unimportant  corrections  to  this  latest  edition  by 
Cozza,  in  Ad  editioneni  Apoc.  S.  Johan.  juxta  vetustissimum  codicem  Basil.  Vat. 
2066  Lips,  anno  1869  evulgatam  animadversiones,  Rome,  1869.] 

D.  (Paul.)  Claromontanus  (^Regius  107),  formerly  in  the  possession  of 
Beza,  who  claimed  to  have  obtained  it  from  Clermont  (Department  Oise) ; 


400  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

fourteen  Pauline  Epistles,  yet  see  §  328 ;  Greek  and  Latin,  stichometric, 
with  accents,  without  division  of  words,  of  the  seventh  century,  with  emenda- 
tions by  a  different  hand.  Fac-simile  edition  by  Tischendorf,  L.  1852,  4°. 
[Cf.  Griesbach,  Symb.  Crit.,  II.  31  ff.] 

E.  (Gosi)els.)  Basiliensis,  the  Gospels,  with  some  very  smaE  gaps  in 
Luke  ;  of  the  eighth  century.  A  fac-simile  as  a  specimen  in  Hug,  Einl., 
II.  ;  G.  A.  Schmelzer,  De  cod.  basil.,  Gcitt.  1750.  [Collated  by  Tischendorf 
and  MuUer,  1843,  and  by  TregeUes,  1846.] 

E.  (Acts.)  Laudianus ;  presented  by  Archbishop  Laud  of  Canterbury  to 
the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford.  Acts,  Greek  and  Latin,  of  the  sixth  or 
seventh  ceutury,  edited  by  T.  Hearne,  1715,  8°.  [Published  by  Tischendorf, 
in  his  Monumcnta  Sacra,  IX.  1870.] 

E.  (Paid.)  Sangermanensis,  formerly  at  Paris  (St.  Germain-des-Pres),  now 
at  St.  Petersburg.  A  copy  of  the  already  corrected  Claromontanus,  perhaps 
not  earUer  than  the  eleventh  century,  and  by  an  uuskillf ul  hand.  Cf .  §  371. 
Michaelis,  Bibl.,  IX.  147.     [Ninth  or  tenth  century,  Tischendorf.] 

F.  (Gospels.)  Boreelianus,  an  outrageously  neglected  manuscrijjt  of  the 
Gospels,  which  has  become  yet  more  defective  during  the  last  century;  since 
a  short  time  at  Utrecht  ;  ninth  century  ;  J.  Heriuga,  De  cod.  horeeliano,  Traj. 
1843. 

F.  (Paul.)  Augiensis,  formerly  m  the  convent  of  Reichenau  on  the  Bo- 
densee,  now  at  Ca,mbridge.  Thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  Greek  and  Latin, 
stichometric,  at  the  earliest  of  the  ninth  ceutury,  with  some  gaps.  Cf.  also 
§  328  and  Tischendorf,  Anecdota  ss.,  1855,  p.  209.  Edition  by  F.  H.  Scriv- 
ener, Cambr.  1859. 

[F".  Passages  of  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Pauline  Epp.  found  copied  on  the 
margin  of  the  Coislin  Octateuch  in  Paris.  Beginning  of  seventh  century. 
Printed  by  Tischendorf,  in  Mon.  sacr,  ined.,  184G.] 

G.  (Gospels.)  Harleianus,  ninth  or  tenth  century;  many  gai)s  partly  sup- 
plied by  later  hands  ;  now  in  the  British  Museum  ;  collated  by  Wetstein, 
Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles. 

[(?.  (Acts.)  Seventh  century;  contains  ii.  45-iii.  8  ;  now  at  St.  Peters- 
burg, where  it  was  taken  by  Tischendorf  in  1850.] 

[6".  (Acts.)  Fragments  of  chs.  xvi.,  xvii.,  xviii.  ;  ninth  century  or  earlier  ; 
now  called  Codex  Vaticanus  9671,  formerly  Cryptoferratensis.  Edited  by 
Cozza,  1877.] 

G.  (Paul.)  Boernerianus,  formerly  in  possession  of  C.  F.  Bonier  at  Leip- 
zig ;  now  at  Dresden.  Thirteen  Pauline  Epistles  (and  the  superscription  of 
a  fourteenth  irphs  AavSaK-fja-as)  with  interlinear  version  and  gaps,  of  the  ninth 
century,  probably  from  the  same  source  as  the  Augiensis.  Printed  complete 
by  C.  F.  Matthfei,  1791,  4°. 

[i/.  (1.)  For  the  Gospels,  Codex  Seidelii ;  tenth  century;  beginning  at 
Mt.  XV.  30,  and  defective  in  all  the  Gospels  ;  now  at  Hamburg  ;  collated  by 
Tregelles,  1850,  and  examined  by  Tischendorf,  1854.] 

\_H.  (2.)  Acts,  Codex  Mutinensis  ;  ninth  century;  lacks  about  seven  chap- 
ters ;  now  at  Modena  ;  carefully  collated  by  Tischendorf,  1843,  and  Tre- 
gelles, 1845.] 

H.  (Paul.)  Coislinianus  (No.  202),  from  the  former  owner  ;  now  in  the 
Parisian  library,  and  some  leaves  of  it  (by  theft  ?)  at  St.  Petersburg.  Frag- 
ments of  the  Paidine  Epistles,  of  the  sixth  century,  according  to  Tischen- 
dorf ;  cf.  §  305.  [Twelve  leaves  at  Paris,  two  at  St.  Petersburg.  These 
fourteen  leaves  edited  by  Montfaucon,  1715,  in  his  Bibliotheca  Coisliniana. 
(Fragments  of  1  Cor.,  Gal.,  1  Tim.,  Tit.,  Hebr.)  Two  more  at  Moscow 
(parts  of  Heb.  x.)  edited  in  fac-simile  by  Sabas,  Specim.  palceogr.,  Moscow, 
1863.  Four  more,  belonging  to  Abp.  Porfiri  and  the  Archimandrite  Antony, 
cited  by  Tischendorf,  Ed.  VIII.,  on  2  Cor.  iv.  4^6,  Col.  iii.  5-8,  1  Thess.  ii. 
9-13,  iv.  6-10.     More  recently,  nine  new  leaves  discovered  at  Mt.  Athos. 


CRITICAL  APPARATUS  —  MANUSCRIPTS  —  DESCRIPTION.     401 

Their  text,  containing  parts  of  2  Cor.  and  Gal.,  published  by  Duchesne,  in 
the  Archives  des  Missions  scient.  et  lit.,  3e  serie,  III.  p.  420  if.,  P.  1876.  Two 
more  leaves,  containing  1  Tim.  vi.  9-13  and  2  Tim.  ii.  1-9,  have  been  found 
attached  to  a  MS.  hi  the  Nat.  Library  at  Turin,  1881.] 

[/.  (Gospels,  Acts,  Pauline  Epp.)  Cod.  Tischendorjianus  II.,  at  St.  Peters- 
burg. Twenty-eight  palimpsest  leaves,  under  Georgian  writing,  of  seven 
different  MSS.  1^,  of  Jn.  xi.,  xii.,  xv.,  xvi.,  xix.  I'^,  1  Cor.  xv.,  xvi.  ;  Tit.  i.; 
Acts  xxviii.  I^,  Mt.  xiv.,  icdv.,  xxv.,  xxvi.  ;  Mk.  ix.,  xiv.  I*,  Mt.  xvii.-xix.  ; 
Lk.  xviii.  ;  Jn.  iv.,  v.,  xx.  I^,  Acts  ii.,  xxvi.  I^,  Acts  xiii.  I'^,  Lk.  vii.,  xxiv. 
1\  2,  3  are  of  the  fifth  century  ;  I'',  ^  of  the  sixth  ;  I^,  6  of  the  seventh.  Pub- 
lished by  Tischendorf,  in  his  Monumenta  sacr.  ined.,  I.  1855. 

[i*.  (Gospel  of  John),  formerly  N''. ;  beginning  of  fifth  century;  four 
palimpsest  leaves  in  the  British  Museum,  containing  fragments  of  seventeen 
verses  of  Jn.  xiii.  and  xvi.  Deciphered  by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  and 
published  by  the  former  in  3Ioti.  sacr.  ined.,  II.  1857.] 

K.  (Gospels.)  Cypriwi  (Kegius  63),  the  Gospels  with  a  pointing  in  imita- 
tion of  stichometry,  etc.,  of  the  ninth  century.  Scholz,  De  cod.  Cyprio, 
Heidelb.  1820.  [Collated  by  Tischendorf,  1842,  and  Tregelles,  184'J  and 
1850.] 

K.  (Pauline  and  Catholic  Epistles.)  At  Moscow;  all  the  Epistles  of  the 
N.  T.  with  slight  gaps  ;  of  the  ninth  century.     [Collated  by  Matthaei.] 

L.  (^Regius  62.)  The  Gospels  with  slight  gaps  ;  an  exceptionally  well-pre- 
served manuscript,  but  written  by  an  unskillful  hand  ;  perhaps  of  the  eighth 
century;  pi-inted  in  full  in  Tischendorf 's  Monumenta,  1846.  Also  a  fac- 
simile in  Hug,  Einl. ;  Michaelis,  Or.  Bibl.,  9,  144. 

[Z.  (2.)  For  the  Acts,  Pauline  and  Catholic  Epistles,  Codex  Angelicus  or 
Passionei  (formerly  G  and  J);  ninth  century;  now  in  the  Angelica  Library 
at  Rome  ;  contains  Acts  vii.  10  to  Heb.  xiii.  10.  Collated  by  Tischendorf, 
1843,  and  Tregelles,  1845.] 

M.  (Regius,  48.)  Codex  Campianus,  the  Gospels  complete  ;  perhaps  of 
the  ninth  century.     [Copied  and  used  by  Tischendorf,  1849.] 

M.  (Paid.)  Codex  Ruber,  fragments  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
[two  leaves  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  52-2  Cor.  i.  15;  2  Cor.  x.  13-xii.  5]  at  Loiidon,  and 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  [Heb.  i.  1-iv.  3  ;  xii.  20-xiii.  25]  at  Ham- 
burg, perhaps  belonging  together,  of  the  ninth  century.  [Written  in  red.] 
Fac-simile  in  Tischendorf 's  Anecdota  ss.,  1855,  p.  175  ff.  [Also,  with  a  few 
corrections,  1861.] 

[iV.  (1.)  For  the  Gospels.  Codex  Purpureus,  end  of  sixth  century  ;  written 
on  thin  purple  vellum,  in  silver  letters  ;  four  leaves  m  London,  two  in 
Vienna,  six  in  the  Vatican,  and  thirty-three  in  the  monastery  of  St.  John  in 
Patmos.  The  readings  from  these  thirty-three  leaves,  containing  Mk.  vi. 
63-xv.  23,  with  some  gaps,  were  used  by  Tischendorf,  in  the  eighth  edition 
of  his  N.  T.  Since  published  by  Duchesne  in  the  Archives  des  Missions  sci- 
entijiques,  3e  ser.,  1876.] 

[iV.  (2.)  Two  leaves  ;  ninth  century  ;  contains  Gal.  v.  12-vi.  4  and  Heb. 
V.  8-vi.  10.     Brought  by  Tischendorf  to  St.  Petersburg.] 

[O.  John's  Gospel,  part  of  Jn.  i.  and  xx.  with  scholia  ;  at  Moscow  ;  eight 
leaves  ;  ninth  century  ;  edited  by  Matthsei,  1785,  and  after  him  by  Tre- 
gelles, Cod.  Zacynlhius,  1861,  Appendix.] 

[0.  2  Corinthians,  2  leaves,  sixth  century,  containing  2  Cor.  i.  20-ii.  12. 
Brought  from  the  East  to  St.  Petersburg  by  Tischendorf,  in  1859.] 

10",  0\  (1),  0%  O"",  0%  0^.  Psalters  or  other  MSS.  containing  some 
or  all  of  the  hymns  of  Luke's  Gospel.  O*  at  Wolfenbiittel,  edited  by  Tisch- 
endorf, Anecd.  sacr.  et  prof.,  1855.  O''  at  Oxford.  0°  at  Verona,  Greek 
text  in  Roman  letters,  edited  by  Bianchini,  1740.  O'^  at  Ziirich,  on  purple 
veUum  in  silver  letters,  edited  by  Tischendorf,  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  IV.  0* 
26 


402  HISTORY   OF   THE   WRITTEN  TEXT. 

and  O'  at  St.  Gall  and  St.  Petersburg,  collated  by  Tischendorf.  0°  sixth, 
century  ;  C   seventh  ;  O",  ^,  %  ',  ninth.] 

[0*.  {2.)  Sixth  century  ;  one  leaf,  containing,  imperfectly,  Ejjh.  iv.  1-18  ; 
collated  by  Tischendorf  at  Moscow,  1868.] 

[P.  (1.)  for  the  Gospels,  Codex  Guelpherhytanus  I.,  sixth  century  ;  a  pa- 
limpsest with  works  of  Isidore  Hispal.  ;  at  Wolfenbiittel  ;  containing  por- 
tions of  all  the  Gospels  (518  verses)  ;  edited  by  Tischendorf,  Mun.  sacr. 
ined.,  VI.  18G9.] 

[P.  (2.)  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  with  some  gaps,  Codex  Porfirianus, 
a  palimpsest  of  the  ninth  century,  in  possession  of  Abp.  Porfiri  at  St.  Peters- 
burg (now  at  Kiev)  ;  text  particulai'ly  good  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  edited  by 
Tischendorf,  1865  and  1869.  Generally  confirms  A  and  C,  but  often  i>5 
against  all  the  rest.] 

[Q.  (1.)  For  Luke  and  John,  Codex  Guelpherhytanus  II.  ;  fifth  century  ;  a 
palimpsest  containing  fragments  (247  verses)  of  Luke  and  John  ;  at  Wol- 
fenbiittel ;  edited  by  Tischendorf,  Mon-  sacr.  ined..  III.  I860.] 

[Q.  (2.),  Porfirianus,  fifth  century  ;  papyrus  fragments  of  1  Cor.  i.  17-20  ; 
vi.  13-18  ;  vii."3,  4,  10-14.     Collated  by  tischendorf.] 

\_R.  (1.)  Codex  Nitriensis,  sixth  century  ;  fragmentary  palimpsest  of  Luke 
from  a  Cojjtic  monastery  of  the  Nitrian  Desert  ;  now  in  the  British  Museum. 
Collated  by  Tregelles,  1854,  and  edited  by  Tischendorf,  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  I. 
1855.] 

\_R.  (2.).  A  palimpsest  leaf  of  the  seventh  century,  containmg  2  Cor.  xi.  1- 
9  ;  in  the  convent  of  Grotta  Ferrata,  near  Rome  ;  published  by  Cozza, 
1867.] 

S.  A  complete  manuscript  of  the  Gospels,  in  the  Vatican  (No.  354),  with 
the  date  949.    [Collated  by  Tischendorf  for  the  eighth  edition  of  his  N.  T.'] 

T.  Borgianus,  in  the  library  of  the  Propaganda  at  Rome  ;  fragments  of 
Lk.  xxii..  xxiii.,  and  Jn.  vi.— viii.,  with  an  Upper  Egyptian  version  ;  accord- 
ing to  Tischendorf  of  the  fifth  century  ;  see  Michaelis,  Bibl.,  XVIII.  136  ; 
the  fragments  of  John  edited  by  A.  A.  Georgi,  Rome,  1789,  4°.  [Those  of 
Luke  first  collated  by  B.  H.  Alford.] 

[T'""'.  Fragments  of  Lk.  xii.  15-xiii.  32,  Jn.  viii.  23-32,  formerly  owned 
by  Woide  ;  published  by  Ford,  in  his  App.  Cod.  Alex.,  1799.] 

[  T''.  Fragments  of  the  first  four  chapters  of  John  ;  sixth  century  ;  now  at 
St.  Petersburg.] 

[7"°.  A  fragment  of  Matthew  (xiv.  19-xv.  8),  resembling  the  above.] 

[T'''.  Fragments  of  a  Greek-Sahidic  Evangelistary;  seventh  century; 
found  by  Tischendorf,  1866,  in  the  Borgian  Library  at  Rome.  Contains 
Mt.  xvi.  13-20  ;  Mk.  i.  3-8  ;  xii.  35-37  ;  Jn.  xix.  23-27  ;  xx.  30,  31.] 

[T\  A  small  fragment  of  an  J^vangelistary,  of  about  the  sixth  century, 
from  Upper  Egypt  ;  now  in  the  University  Library,  Cambridge,  England  ; 
contains  Mt.  iii.  13-16.  Readings  given  in  the  Postscript  to  Tregelles'  N.  T. 
p.  1070.] 

U.  Nanianus  ;  at  Venice,  the  Gospels,  of  the  tenth  century.  [Collated  by 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles.] 

V.  At  Moscow,  the  Gospels,  of  the  ninth  century  ;  from  Jn.  vii.  39  by  a 
later  hand  ;  probably  the  oldest  of  the  many  MSS.  used  by  Matthtei.    §  413. 

[  PF".  Two  leaves,  containing  fragments  of  Lk.  ix.,  x.  in  the  National  Li- 
brary at  Paris  ;  probably  of  the  eighth  century  ;  edited  by  Tischendorf,  in 
Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  1846.] 

[  W^.  A  palimpsest  of  fourteen  leaves,  found  by  Tischendorf  at  Naples, 
deciphered  by  him  in  1866.] 

[  W".  tliree  leaves,  of  the  ninth  century,  containing  Mk.  ii.  8-16  ;  Lk.  i. 
20-32, 64-79  ;  now  at  St.  Gall ;  edited  by  tischendorf,  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  III. 
I860.] 

[  W"^.  Fragments  of  Mk.  vii.,  viii.,  ix.,  of  the  ninth  century,  found  in   the 


CRITICAL  APPARATUS  —  MANUSCRIPTS  -  DESCRIPTION.    403 

binding  of  a  volume  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  Readings 
remarkable.] 

[  W".  A  fragment  containing  Jn.  iv.  9-14,  discovered  in  18G5  in  the  library 
of  Christ  Clnirch  College  at  Oxford.  Closely  resembles  O,  and  is  perhaps  a 
part  of  the  same  MS.] 

[  W'^.  A  palimpsest  leaf  of  the  ninth  century,  containing  Mk.  v.  16—40,  dis- 
covered by  Mr.  Vansittart  in  Cod.  192  of  the  Acts.] 

[IF".  Codex Sunderla?idianus, considerable  palimpsest  fragments  of  all  four 
Gospels,  perhaps  of  the  ninth  century,  found  in  a  Memeum  belonging  to 
the  Sunderland  Library  ;  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Deciphered  by  T. 
K.  Abbott  and  J.  P.  Mahaffy.] 

X.  At  Munich,  fragments  of  the  Gospels,  with  commentary,  mostly  from 
Chrysostom  ;  ninth  or  tenth  century.  [Collated  by  Tischendorf  and  Tre- 
gelles.] 

[F.  Codex  Barherini,  fragments  from  Jn.  xvi.-xix.,  of  the  eighth  century, 
in  the  library  of  the  Prince  Barberini  at  Rome  ;  published  by  Tischendorf, 
in  Mon.  sacr.  ined.,  1846.] 

Z.  At  Dublin,  fragments  of  Matthew  from  a  very  old  (sixth  century  ?) 
palimpsest,  not  wholly  deciphered.  Edited  in  fac-simile  by  J.  Barrett, 
1801,  4°  ;  see  Eichhorn's  Bihl.,  II.  584  ;  Paulus,  Neues  Repert.,  I.  192  ;  sup- 
plement to  Barrett's  edition  by  S.  P.  Tregelles,  Lond.  1863. 

[Re-edited  with  great  care  by  T.  K.  Abbott,  Lond.  1880.  See  notice  by 
Dr.  Gregory  in  Schiirer's  T'heolog.  Liter alurzeitung,  Leipz.  1881,  col.  228  f.] 

r.  A  manusci'ipt  of  the  Gospels  brought  by  Tischendorf  from  the  Orient ; 
Matthew  and  John  are  very  defective  ;  of  the  ninth  century  ;  now  in  the 
Bodleian  library  at  Oxford. 

A.  At  St.  Gall  ;  the  Gospels  with  a  smgle  small  gap,  with  a  Latin  interlinear 
version,  similar  in  style  to  G.  Boernerianus ;  ninth  century.  Published,  in 
lithographed  fac-simile,  by  H.  C.  M.  Rettig,  Ziir.  1836,  4°  ;  cf.  Theol.  Stun 
dien,  1829,  III.  ;  1836,  II. 

[©".  For  Matthew.  Codex  Tischendorfianus  I. ;  seventh  century  ;  now  in 
the  Leipzig  University  Library  ;  contains  fragments  of  Mt.  xiii.,  xiv.,  xv. 
Found  by  Tischendorf  in  the  East  m  1844  ;  published  in  his  Mon.  sacr.  ined., 
1846.] 

[0*.  Six  leaves,  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  ;  fragments  of  Mt.  xxii. 
xxiii.,  and  Mk.  iv.,  v.     Brought  by  Tischendorf  to  St.  Petersburg  in  1859.] 

[0".  Two  folio  leaves,  of  the  sixth  century,  containing  Mt.  xxi.  19-24  and 
Jn.  xviii.  29-35.  The  first  brought  by  Tischendorf,  the  second  by  Abp. 
Porfiri,  to  St.  Petersburg.] 

[0''.  A  fragment,  of  the  eighth  century,  containing  Lk.  xi.  37-45.  Brought 
to  St.  Petersburg  by  Tischendorf.] 

[0°.  A  fragment,  of  the  sixth  century,  containing  Mt.  xxvi.  2-4,  7-9.] 

[0-^.  Fragments,  of  the  sixth  century,  of  Mt.  xxvi.,  xxvii.,  and  Mk.  i.,  ii.] 

[0".  A  fragment,  of  the  sixth  century,  containing  Jn.  vi.  13,  14,  22-24. 
Resembles  O  (2).] 

[©''.  Gr?eco-Arabic  fragments,  of  the  ninth  century,  of  Mt.  xiv.  and  xxv.  ; 
together  with  @%  ■'',  "  in  the  collection  of  Abp.  Porfiri.] 

A.  Codex  Tischendorjianus  III.  ;  ninth  century  ;  brought  by  Tischendorf 
from  the  Orient  ;  now  at  Oxford  ;  contains  Luke  and  John  complete.  [Col- 
lated by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles.] 

[E.  Codex  Zacynthius  ;  a  palimpsest  of  the  eighth  century,  containing,  with 
some  gaps,  Lk.  i.  1-xi.  33  ;  formerly  at  the  island  of  Zante  ;  presented  in 
1821  to  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  at  London  ;  deciphered  and 
published  by  Tregelles,  1861.  Text  very  valuable,  and  surrounded  by  a 
commentary.] 

[n.  Codex  Petropolitanus,  of  the  ninth  century,  brought  by  Tischendorf 
from  Smyrna  ;  containing  the  Gospels  nearly  complete,  lacking  but  77 
verses.     Collated  by  Tischendorf,  1864  and  1865.] 


404  HISTORY  OF  THE  WRITTEN  TEXT. 

[2.  Codex  Roasanenxix,  discovered  by  Gebhardt  and  Hariiack,  in  March, 
1879,  at  Rossano,  in  Calabria.  Beautifully  written,  in  silver  letters,  on  fine 
purple  vellum,  with  the  hrst  three  lines  in  both  columns,  at  the  beginning  of 
each  Gospel,  in  gold  (very  rare  among  Greek  MSS.).  Also  ornamented 
with  eighteen  pictures  in  water  colors,  representing  scenes  in  the  gospel 
Listory.  Consists  of  188  leaves  of  two  columns  of  twenty  lines  each,  and 
contains  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  Luke  and  John  having  been  lost. 
Assigned  by  Gebhardt  and  Harnack  to  the  sixth  century.  See  Eoangeliorum 
Codex  argenteus  purpureus  Rossanensis,  Uteris  argenteis  sexto  ut  videtur  sceculo 
scriptus  picturlsque  ornatus,  by  O.  von  Gebhardt  and  Adolf  Harnack,  Leipz., 
1880  ;  contains  fac-similes  of  portions  of  the  text  and  outline  sketches  of 
the  pictures.] 

[A  full  list  of  published  Uncial  MSS.,  by  Prof.  Isaac  H.  Hall,  in  Schaff, 
Companion,  p.  139.] 

We  cannot  enumerate  here  the  later  MSS.  and  the  numerous  monographs 
relating  to  them  ;  for  examples  of  the  more  important  see  §  417. 

It  is  to  be  expressly  noted  that  the  most  of  these  ancient  uncial  MSS. 
have  only  been  known,  or  at  least  used,  since  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
many  only  very  recently. 

[III.  Cursive  manuscripts  :  — 

[A  few  of  the  most  valuable  are  :  — 

[1,  for  the  Gospels  :  Codex  Basileensis  ;  tenth  century  ;  at  Basle  ;  known 
to  Erasmus,  but  little  used  by  him  ;  collated  by  Wetstein,  C.  L.  Roth,  and 
Tregelles.] 

[33,  in  the  Gospels  (13  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  17  in  Paul), 
Codex  Colbertinus J  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris  ;  eleventh  century; 
called  the  "  queen  of  the  cursives  ;  "  collated  by  Griesbach,  and  especially 
by  Tregelles  in  1850.] 

[61,  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  Codex  TiscTiendorJianus  ;  in  the  British 
Museum  ;  dated  April  20,  1044.  Collated  by  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  and 
Scrivener.  According  to  Dr.  Hort,  Westcott  and  Hort's  N.  T.  in  Greek,  II. 
154,  "  contains  a  very  ancient  text,  often  Alexandrian,  rarely  Western,  with 
a  trifling  Syrian  element,  probably  of  late  introduction."] 

[69,  Gospels  (31  Acts,  37  Paul),  Codex  Leicestrensis  ;  eleventh  century  ; 
collated  by  Tregelles,  1852,  and  Scrivener,  1855.] 

[81,  Gospels  ;  at  St.  Petersburg  ;  "  the  most  valuable  cursive  for  the 
preservation  of  Western  readings  in  the  Gospels."  (Dr.  Hort,  in  Westcott 
and  Hort's  N.  T.,  II.  154.)] 

393.  In  age,  some  of  the  versions  surpass  the  still  extant 
Greek  manuscripts  of  the  original  text ;  but  they  can  of  course 
give  only  indirect  evidence,  since  in  any  case  of  doubt  a  retrans- 
lation  into  the  Greek  is  necessary.  This  proceeding  is  of  value 
chiefly  in  cases  where  the  version  strives  after  literalness,  which 
is  often  done  to  the  complete  sacrifice  of  the  laws  of  its  own 
language,  and  with  a  slavish  accommodation  to  the  spirit  and 
forms  of  Hellenism.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  not  every 
variation  is  at  once  to  be  taken  as  evidence  respecting  the  text, 
since  not  every  translator  always  found  in  his  own  language 
the  means  of  literal  fidelity.  In  general,  the  testimony  of  a 
version  can  be  of  weight  only  so  far  as  its  peculiar  readings  are 
confirmed  by  Greek  manuscripts,  and  in  any  case  only  after  its 
own  text  has  been  established  by  previous  criticism,  and  has 
been  freed  from  the  possible  suspicion  of  subsequent  alteration 


CRITICAL  APPARATUS  — VERSIONS— QUOTATIONS.      405 

ill  accordance  with  later  copies  of  the  original  text.  It  need 
not  be  said  tliat  we  speak  here  only  of  those  versions  which 
were  made  before  the  invention  of  printing. 

This  aid  to  criticism,  also,  was  only  gradually  taken  advantage  of,  and  for 
a  long  time  with  very  doubtful  results.  Ou  the  versions  in  question  them- 
selves, their  date  and  extent,  see  our  Fourth  Book,  and  the  literature  there 
catalogued.     Here  only  writings  devoted  exclusively  to  comparison  of  text. 

The  most  accessible  are  the  Latin,  both  the  older  (Itala)  and  the  later 
(Vulgate).  The  first  is  found  in  the  Grteco-Latin  codices  mentioned  in 
§  391',  partly  edited  (D  Cantab.,  D  Clarom.,  E  Laud.,  E  Sangal.,  G  Boer- 
ner.);  also  in  Codd.  Vercellensis,  Veronensis,  Brixianus  (printed  in  Bianclilni, 
EvangeUarium  quadruplex  ladnce  vers,  antiquce,  etc.,  Rome,  1749,  2  vols,  fol.), 
and  Palatinus,  at  Vienna  (edited  by  Tischendorf,  L.  1847,  4°),  all  of  which 
contain  simply  the  Gospels  (with  gaps),  of  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  century. 
For  other  aids  belonging  under  this  head,  see  Sabatier  and  others  (§  450 
ff.).     A  rich  collection  of  variants  is  given  by  Mill,  Prolegg.,  §§  377-605. 

The  Vulgate  is  not  to  be  used  from  the  printed  manual  editions,  which  do 
not  give  a  critical  text,  but  from  MSS.,  the  oldest  of  which  (beside  F  and  A, 
§  39"J)  are  Codex  Amiatinus  at  Florence  (edited  by  Tischendorf,  1854,  4° 
[also  by  Tregelles,  in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Test.,  with  variations  of  the 
Clementine  text.  Dates  from  541]),  Fuldensis,  2'oletanus,  S.  Emmerami  at 
Munich,  of  the  sixth  to  the  ninth  century  ;  especially  also  Forujuliensis 
[sixth  century],  which  is  preserved  in  portions  at  Venice,  Prague,  and  Friuli, 
and  prmted  complete  in  Bianchini,  Evang.  quadruplex,  App.     [See  §  456.] 

C.  A.  Breyther,  De  vi  quam  verss.  latincE,  in  crisin  evv.  habeant,  Merseb. 
1824. 

Among  the  Oriental  versions,  the  two  Syriac,  the  three  Egyptian,  the 
Ethiopic,  and  the  Armenian  are  the  most  imjjortant,  and  they  have  in  part 
been  very  accurately  used.     The  Gothic  also  belongs  in  this  category. 

A.  P.  de  Lagarde,  De  N.  T.  ad  verss.  or.fidem  emendando,  B.  1857  ;  J.  W. 
Reusch,  Syrus  interpres  cum  fonte  grceco  N.  T.  collatus,  L.  1741  ;  G.  B. 
Winer,  De  usu  vers.  si/r.  N.  T.  critico  caute  instituendo,  Erl.  1823  ;  Storr, 
Ueber  die  philox.  Uebeis.,  in  the  Repert.,  X.;  Wichelhaus,  Peschito,  p.  236  ff. 
[See  §§  427  ff.]  For  the  Coptic  versions,  see  Michaelis,  Bibl,  X.  198,  XVII. 
136;  Neue  Bibl,  VIII.  237  ;  Wilkins,  Prolegg.  [§  430].  —  For  the  Ethiopic, 
Mill,  Prolegg.,  1188  ff. ;  Bode's  Latin  edition  of  its  Matthew,  H.  1749 
[§431].  —  On  the  Armenian,  Bredencamp,  in  Michaelis,  Neue  Bibl.,  Yll. 
139  ;  Alter,  in  Paulus,  Memor.,  VIII.  186  [§  432].  —  On  the  Gothic,  Kuit- 
tel,  in  Eichhorn's  Bibl.,  VII.  783  [§  444  f.]. 

Of  less  value  for  criticism,  because  proportionately  later,  or  not  derived 
directly  from  the  Greek,  interpolated,  or  of  uncertain  origin,  are  the  Geor- 
gian (see  Alter,  Ueber  georg.  Literal.,  p.  26  [§  433]),  the  Slavic  (id.,  ib.,  p. 
170,  and  in  the  appendix  to  his  N.  T.  [§§  446,  447]),  the  Anglo-Saxon 
[§  462],  the  Arabic  [§§  437,  438]  and  the  Persian  [§  441]. 

394.  The  quotations  of  particular  passages  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  the  works  of  the  Church  Fathers,  which  are  to  be 
adduced  as  a  third  source,  are  in  some  respects,  it  is  true,  to  be 
placed  above  the  versions,  on  account  of  their  high  antiquity 
and  immediateness,  and  may  also  do  good  service  in  determin- 
ing the  nativity  of  peculiar  forms  of  the  text ;  but  they  have 
also  their  drawbacks  and  deficiencies.  In  the  first  place,  they 
are  mostly  only  small  fragments  taken  out  of  the  Scriptures 
and  applied  to  various  uses  in  the  later  theological    works  ; 


406  HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT. 

then  these  uses  did  not  always  require  strict  adherence  to  the 
original  words,  but  permitted  quotation  from  memory  simply, 
wliich  is  the  case  the  oftener,  the  farther  back  we  go.  Hence  the 
greatest  and  surest  advantage  comes  from  the  exegetical  works, 
which  explain  whole  books  in  a  comprehensive  wa}^  But  in 
all  cases  it  is  necessaiy  to  take  care  to  see  whether  the  copyists 
or  editors  of  patristic  writings  have  not  arbitrarily  altered  such 
quotations  in  order  to  make  them  correspond  with  the  text 
familiar  to  them,  or  looked  upon  by  them  as  authentic,  so  that 
they  must  be  regarded  no  longer  as  fragments  of  very  old 
manuscripts,  now  lost,  but  as  copies  of  later  worthless  ones. 

The  number  of  Church  Fathers  available  and  already  used  is  very  great, 
but  the  advantage  derived  from  them  has  been  of  importance  in  case  of  but 
few.  The  oldest  Greek  writer  who  is  here  to  be  considered  on  account  of 
the  great  number  of  his  quotations  (since  Justin  cannot  be  used  for  this  pur- 
pose, §  199)  is  Clement  of  Alexandria  ;  the  most  important,  from  his  date 
and  as  an  exegete,  Origen.  (Griesbach,  0pp.,  I.  278;  II.  37.)  After  him, 
as  exegetes,  come  Chrysostom,  Eplirem,  Theodoret  ;  later,  Euthymius,  CE- 
cumenius,  Theophylact  ;  on  the  Apocalypse  in  particular,  Andreas  and  Are- 
tas  ;  see  on  these  Matthaei,  preface  to  the  tenth  volume  of  his  N.  T.,  and  our 
Fifth  Book  [Rettig,  Die  Zeugnisse  des  Andreas  u.  Aretas,  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit- 
iken,  1831  ;  Otto,  Des  Patriarchen  Gennadios  Confession,  nehst  einem  Excurs 
uber  Arethas'  Zeitalter,  Vienna,  1864;  article  Arethas,  in  Smith  and  Wace, 
Diet,  of  Chr.  Biography,  I.  154  f.,  and  especially  Harnack,  Die  Ueberliefer- 
ung  der  griech.  Apologeten,  etc.,  L.  1882,  p.  36  ff.]  ;  among  theologians, 
Athanasius,  the  two  Cyrils,  Epiphanius,  and  John  of  Damascus.  More  com- 
plete lists  in  the  Prolegomena  of  the  critical  editions,  especially  Scholz  and 
Tischendorf  [Scrivener,  p.  372  f.  ;  Mitchell,  Handh.,  Tables  XI.  and 
XII.]  ;  also  Eichhorn,  Einl.,  V.  134.  Cf.  in  general  J.  S.  Vater,  Obss.  ad 
usum  PP.  groicorum  in  a-isi  N.  T.,  Reg.  1810,  Pt.  I.,  II.  Special  :  F.  W. 
Edel,  Collatio  critica  locc.  N.  T.  quce  in  Actis  conciliorum  gr.  IV.  prim.  secc. 
laudantur,  Arg.  1811  ;  F.  J.  Arens  (§  247).  [See  on  the  value  and  use  of 
patristic  quotations  Tregelles,  in  Home's  Introduction,  14th  ed.  Lond.  1877, 
IV.  p.  329  if. ;  SchafP,  Companion,  164  ff.] 

The  possibility  of  getting  any  advantage  from  the  critical  studies  of  Mar- 
cion  is,  according  to  §§  246,  362,  problematical. 

Latin  writers  bear  witness  for  the  most  part  only  to  their  Latin  text;  yet 
even  this  in  the  first  centuries  is  a  very  important  help,  and  must  by  all 
means  be  taken  advantage  of,  since  Irenseus  and  Jerome  were  familiar  with 
Greek  manuscripts.  Only  from  writers  before  the  time  of  the  latter  (Ter- 
tuUian,  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  the  two  Hilaries,  Augustine)  has  criticism  any- 
thing to  gain  for  the  Greek  text. 

C.  I.  Ansaldi,  De  authenticis  ss.  apud  Patres  lectionibus,  Verona,  1747. 

395.  The  completest  possible  solution  of  the  problem  of 
New  Testament  textual  criticism  depends  partly  upon  the 
completeness  of  the  apparatus  and  partly  upon  tlie  right  use 
of  it.  The  history  of  the  printed  text,  therefore,  has  to  do 
equally  with  the  attempts  of  scholars  to  obtain  this  apparatus, 
or  the  preliminary  critical  labors,  and  with  the  use  of  it,  or  the 
editions.  Of  the  latter,  as  a  critico-historical  science,  it  has 
properly  to  notice  only  those  which  have  given  the  text  a  new 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM.  407 

form,  in  the  consideration  of  which  it  directs  its  attention  both 
to  the  aids  and  to  the  principles  of  the  editors.  The  great 
mass  of  editions  reprinted  witliout  change  from  others  has  for 
the  most  part  only  a  bibliographical  interest,  yet  taken  as  a 
whole  presents  a  certain  side  of  the  development  of  the  science 
itself,  and  is  therefore  not  to  be  neglected  in  this  connection. 

Bibliographical  catalogues  (general)  :  J.  Le  Long,  Bihliotheca  sacra,  Par. 
1709  ;  ed.  2,  1723,  2  vols.  fol.  (on  the  present  subject  see  I.  199  ff.)  ;  en- 
larged by  C.  F.  Borner,  L.  1709,  2  vols.  8°;  best  of  all,  Bihliotheca  sacra  .  .  . 
emendata,  suppleta,  continuata,  by  A.  G.  Masch,  Hal.  1781-90,  5  vols.  4°  (un- 
completed ;  covers  only  the  editions  of  the  original  text  and  the  Oriental 
and  Latin  versions).  Shorter  catalogues  :  Cahnet,  Dlctionnalre  de  la  Bible, 
III.  ;  Walch,  Biblioih.  theol.,  IV.;  Rosenmiiller,  Handh.,  I.  ;  Meyer,  Gesch. 
der  Schrifterkldrung,  in  the  separate  volumes  ;  T.  F.  Dibdin,  Introduction  to 
the  Knowledge  of  Rare  and  Valuable  Editions,  etc.,  ed.  3,  Loud.  1808,  2 
vols.  ;  of.  also  §§  425,  460. 

For  the  N.  T.  in  particular,  and  with  critical  reference  :  the  Prolegg.  of 
Mill,  §  1089  ff.;  Wetstein,  ed.  Semler,  p.  309  ff.  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachrichten 
von  merkwilrdigen  Biichern  ;  Hallische  Bibliolhek  (§  460),  passim  ;  Matthsei, 
N.  T.  ed.  minor,  I.  679  ff.;  Griesbach,  ed.  1796;  his  Historia  edd.  N.  T.,  in 
the  Mus.  Hagan.,  II.  493  ff.  ;  Eichhorn,  Einl,  V.  248  flP.  ;  S.  P.  Tregelles, 
A  Prospectus  of  a  New  Edition  of  the  Greek  N.  T.,tvith  an  Historical  Account 
of  the  Printed  Text,  1848.  —  J.  B.  Reinhard,  De  N.  T.  primis  editoribus,  Vit. 
1717  ;  reaches  to  1551.  —  E.  Reuss,  Bibliotheca  N.  T.  grcEci,  etc.,  Brunsw. 
1872.  [This  work  of  Reuss  supplemented  and  brought  down  to  1882  by 
Prof.  Isaac  H.  Hall,  and  the  list  published  in  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk. 
Test.,  p.  497  ff.] 

We  distinguish  (1.)  Original  editions,  which  are  made  from  MSS.  alone, 
edd.  principcs.  (2.)  New  recensions,  transformations  of  the  text  in  accord- 
ance with  MSS.  and  upon  critical  principles,  with  or  without  reference  to 
former  editions.  (3.)  Recognitions,  editions  changed  in  accordance  with 
new  principles  without  reference  to  new  MSS.  (4.)  Editions  compiled  from 
several  earlier  ones,  without  new  aids.  (5.)  Reprints.  (6.)  Title-page  edi- 
tions, both  those  repeated  by  the  stereotype  process  and  those  which  repeat- 
edly put  upon  the  market  the  first  (and  only)  impression,  brought  down  to 
the  time  simply  by  a  new  title  page  and  a  changed  date. 

396.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  earliest  editors  of  the  New 
Testament  had  at  least  a  superficial  knowledge,  if  not  of  the 
corruption  of  the  text,  yet  of  the  diversity  of  the  manuscripts, 
and  in  so  far  also  an  idea  of  the  task  of  criticism.  Yet  this 
science  was  still  in  its  infancy,  and  even  the  practice  which 
might  have  been  obtained  in  working  upon  the  classics  was 
calculated  to  lead  theologians  astray  in  this  new  business,  since 
it  had  a  wholly  different  basis  and  was  to  be  carried  on  by  means 
of  different  aids.  The  power  of  custom,  which  in  theological 
and  ecclesiastical  matters  so  often  restricts  progress,  here  also 
came  in  to  hinder  in  many  ways,  and  to  make  the  good  will 
and  industry  of  scholars  unfruitful.  It  was  fully  two  hundred 
years  before,  from  uncertain  groping  about,  thej''  arrived  at  a 
scientific  method  based  upon  definite  principles,  or  at  least  ven- 
tured to  SMy  plainly  what  was  clearly  recognized. 


408  HISTORY  OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

With  respect  to  the  classics,  on  account  of  the  much  smaller  number  of 
MSS.,  the  histoi-y  of  the  text,  which  is  the  most  indispensable  element  of 
criticism  in  the  N.  T.,  is  in  most  cases  wanting  ;  not  to  speak  of  the  two 
classes  of  helps  which  do  not  exist. 

The  literature  of  Biblical  Criticism  is  catalogued  by  Roseumiiller,  in  liis 
Handb.,  I.  439  If.  II.,  1  ff.,  [Schatf,  Companion,  p.  83  f.] 

More  general  text-books  of  the  theory  and  aids  of  Biblical  Criticism  are  : 
Glasius,  Ph'dologia  sacra,  Bk.  I.,  Jena,  1G23  and  freq.  ;  last  by  G.  L.  Bauer, 
1796  (the  other  portions  of  the  work  do  not  belong  here)  ;  J.  Clericus,  Ars 
critica  (on  classical  literature  also),  ed.  G,  Leyd.  1778,  3  vols.  ;  J.  Heringa,  Be- 
griff,  Unentbehrlickkeit,  und  rechter  Gebrauch  der  bibl.  Kritik,  from  the  Dutch 
by  M.  J.  H.  Beckhaus,  Olfenb.  1804;  Lbhnis,  G'runc/su^e  der  bibl.  Kritik  {h\ 
his  Hermeneutik,  pp.  233-4'28)  ;  Kuenen.  [See  the  works  cited  under  §  351.] 

On  the  N.  T.  iu  particular  see  the  Prolegomena  to  the  editions  of  Walton, 
Curcellpeus,  Fell,  Mill,  Gerhard  v.  Maestricht,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Scholz, 
and  others.     See  the  appropriate  sections  below. 

Also,  J.  Saubert,  Prolegg.  ad  Matth.,  pp.  1-62  ;  C.  M.  Pfaff,  De  genuinis 
II.  N.  T.  lectionibus  indagandis,  Amst.  1709;  C.  B.  Michaelis,  De  variis  lec- 
tionibus  N.  T.  caute  colligendis  et  diiudicandis,  Hal.  1749  ;  J.  J.  Wetstein, 
Anim.  et  cautiones  ad  examen  var.  lectt.  N.  T.  necessarice,  in  his  Libell.  crit., 
ed.  Semler,  176G.  Also  Semler's  Spicilegium,  p.  167  If .  ;  CD.  Beck,  Mono- 
grammata  hermen.,  pp.  22-125  ;  J.  M.  A.  Scholz,  De  critica  N.  T.  generatim, 
Heid.  1820  ;  F.  Schleiermacher,  Hermeneutik  und  Kritik  mit  bes.  Beziehung 
auf  das  N.  T.,  B.  1838;  C.  Tischendorf,  in  the  Stadien,  1842,  II.  ;  W.  F. 
Rink,  ibid.,  1846,  II. 

397.  Among  the  obstacles  which  daring  this  long  period  op- 
posed the  purification  of  the  text,  the  small  miniber  of  manu- 
scripts accessible  or  made  use  of,  and  their  slight  age,  was  not 
the  greatest.  Scholars  were  unable  to  make  the  best  choice 
from  among  those  at  hand,  or  were  not  accurate  enough  in 
their  comparison,  or  contented  themselves  with  estimating  the 
value  of  readings  according  to  the  number  of  sources  in  which 
they  were  found.  In  consequence  of  the  astonishing  number  of 
copies  which  appeared  at  the  very  beginning,  in  a  long  series  of 
manual  editions,  mostly  from  one  and  the  same  recension,  the 
idea  grew  up  spontaneously  very  early  tliat  in  the  manuscripts 
also  the  text  was  tolerably  uniform,  and  that  any  thorough  re- 
vision of  it  was  unnecessary  and  impertinent.  The  oriental 
versions  were  closed  to  most ;  the  importance  of  the  Church 
Fathers  was  scarcely  suspected;  but  the  greatest  lack  of  all 
for  the  purification  of  the  text  was  the  indispensable  knowl- 
edge of  the  process  of  its  corruption.  Moreover,  a  correct  con- 
ception of  the  peculiar  idiom  in  which  the  Apostles  wrote 
could  not  arise  in  the  midst  of  the  humanistic  tendency  of  the 
time,  and  the  readings  due  to  this  cause  were  wrongly  esti- 
mated in  many  ways. 

To  these  may  still  be  added  :  the  arbitrariness,  in  defiance  of  all  criticism, 
used  in  minfrlinw  the  reading's  of  existing:  editions  :  the  negligence  in  describ- 

•1  OO  _0  O  .Till 

ing  the  MSS.  used,  and  in  stating  the  sources  of  variants  adopted  ;  the  lack 
of  a  fixed  text  according  to  which,  to  avoid  confusion,  all  collations  could  be 
arranged  ;  finally,  the  impossibility  of  a  full  survey  of  the  apparatus. 


COMPLUTENSIAN  POLYGLOT.  409 

398.  The  more  these  various  causes  operated,  and  as  the  de- 
ficiencies arising  from  them  became  more  and  more  percepti- 
ble, the  greater  became  the  inclination  to  seek  help  over  the 
difficulties  of  misunderstood  passages,  or  through  the  chaos  of 
variants,  by  conjectures,  the  acute  application  of  which  had 
already  often  been  successful  in  the  classics.  Although  this 
expedient  is  theoretically  not  to  be  condemned  uncondition- 
ally, on  account  of  the  great  gaps  at  the  beginning  of  the 
series  of  critical  witnesses,  yet  it  was  properly  abandoned  more 
and  more  as  the  supply  of  trustworthy  aids  increased,  and  its 
application  was  found  to  be  as  unnecessary  in  practical  criti- 
cism as  it  was  inadvisable  for  dogmatic  reasons. 

L.  C.  Valckenaer,  De  s.  N.  F,  critice  a  literatoribus  non  exercenda,  Franeq. 
1745  ;  idem,  De  critica  emendatrice  in  ss.  N.  F.  II.  non  adhibenda,  Fraiieq. 
1745;  M.  Weber,  De  intempestiva  lectionis  emendandce  cura,  L.  1783;  P.  J.  S. 
Vogel,  De  conjectarce  usu  in  crisi  N.  T.,  Altd.  1795;  cf.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bibl., 
21,  159;  Augusti,  Neue  Blatter,  III.  31G. 

Collections  :  Critical  Conjectures  and  Observations  on  the  N.  T.,  collected 
from  various  authors,  by  W.  Bowyer  (1763),  4tli  ed.,  Loud.  1812,  4°. 

That  conjecture  is  a  very  ancient  exegetical  expedient  is  apparent  from 
Tertullian  (^Cont.  Marc,  V.  3),  who  strikes  out  the  negative  oii5e  in  Gal.  ii.  5  : 
intendamus  sensui  ipsi  et  apparebit  vitiatio  scripturce.  Yet  he  probably  had  the 
Latin  text  in  his  favor. 

Many  proposed  emendations  of  the  text  in  locis  dubiis  et  vexatis  have  proved 
wholly  unnecessary  with  a  more  advanced  exegesis  :  e.  g.,  1  Cor.  i.  12  :  Kpianov 
for  XpiffToO  (Bowyer);  xi.  10:  e|ioC<ra  (Toup);  ibid.,  ayeAaiovs  (Gothofred); 
XV.  29  :  a7r'  epyuiv  veKpuv  (Valckenaer) ;  Acts  vi.  9  :  hi^va-Tivwv  (Beza) ;  ii.  9: 
'iv^lav  instead  of  'lov^aiav  (Erasmus);  Lk.  ii.  2  :  irph  rrjs  (Boullier);  Mt.  xxvii. 
9:  Zaxapiov  (Origen);  Mk.  ix.  49  :  TrSo-a  ivvpia  (Scaliger);  1  Cor.  xv.  32  :  Kar^ 
audpuiTTwu  (idem). 

Others  deserve  no  respect,  being  products  of  dogmatic  prejudice  :  e.  g., 
Mt.  xxviii.  19  :  ^awriCovTes  ff.  to  be  stricken  out  (Teller) ;  Lk.  iii.  22  :  (too- 
fiariKoj  etSei  to  be  stricken  out  (Valckenaer);  Jn.  i.  1:  deov  ?iu  6  \6yos  (S. 
Crell),  or  Oehs  ?V  kuI  6  \6yos  (Bahrdt);  Rom.  ix.  5  :  wv  6  eVi  (Schlichting). 

In  modern  times  Dutch  philologists  in  particular  (Valckenaer,  0pp.,  II. 
229-324  ;  Venema  and  Verschuir  in  the  latter's  0pp.,  358-443  ;  Wassen- 
bergh  in  Valckenaer's  Scholia,  II.  9-62  ;  Toup  and  others),  also  some  Ger- 
mans (Fritzsche,  Gersdorf,  Eichhorn,  Einl.,  V.  321,  Schott,  Isag.,  576,  Hit- 
zig  in  the  Ziircher  Monatsschr.,  1856,  p.  63  ff.),  have  still  regarded  conjecture 
as  necessary,  e.  g.,  in  Jn.  xix.  19  :  vaa-dnrcp ;  Acts  ii.  9,  10  to  be  stricken  out ; 
2  Pet.  i.  5:  koI  avrol  Sia  tovto;  Gal.  ii.  1:  reacrdpooy ;  Heb.  xi.  37:  iTreipdaBrjaau 
to  be  altered  ;  perhaps  Ja.  iv.  6  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  6.  (Bornemann  in  the  Siichs. 
Studien,  I.  37).  Lachmann  (Pref.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  6  ff.)  gives  a  list  of  passages 
which  might  perhaps  be  aided  by  conjecture  :  e.  g.,  Mk.  i.  2,  3  the  quotation 
to  be  corrected  ;  ix.  23  :  ej  Swri  ■KtaToxra.i ;  Lk.  xiv.  5:  ois  ^  /SoC?  ;  Jn.  viii.  44  : 
&s  h.v  \a\^;  1  Cor.  viii.  1:  on  ov  iravTis,  etc.  See  also  the  expositors  on  all 
the  passages  cited. 

399.  But  notwithstanding  all  these  perhaps  unavoidable  de- 
fects, we  should  not  detract  from  the  fame  of  those  who  took 
the  first  steps  in  this  difficult  way.  This  fame  belongs  to  the 
Spanish  scholars  who,  under  the  direction  and  according  to 
the  plan  of  Cardinal  Francis  Ximenes  de  Cisneros,  Archbishop 


410  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED    TEXT. 

of  Toledo,  edited  the  great  Coniplutensian  Polyglot,  in  which 
for  the  first  time  the  Greek  New  Testament  was  included. 
The  text  was  derived  from  several  manuscripts  not  further 
described,  though  doubtless  mostly  late,  but  does  not  seem  to 
deserve  the  reproach  afterward  brought  against  it,  of  having 
been  altered  to  agree  with  the  Vulgate ;  nay,  even  in  the  light 
of  modern  criticism,  it  still  bears  comparison  with  any  other 
recension  of  the  period  immediately  subsequent.  The  famous 
work  is  still  illustrious  to-day,  more  on  account  of  its  rarity 
and  monumental  character  than  on  account  of  the  service  it 
could  render  to  science;  but  these  qualities  assure  it  immor- 
tality more  than  does  their  greater  internal  comjjleteness  the 
better  of  its  successors. 

On  the  Polyglot  of  Alcalk  (Complutum)  see  in  general  W.  E.  Tentzel, 
De  bibllis  poli/gL,  Witt.  1686  ;  Hottiuger,  Blbllothecarius  quadrip.,  p.  133  f.; 
Kortholdt,  De  edd.  S.  S.,  p.  374  £f.  ;  H.  von  der  Hardt,  Memoria  Ximenii, 
Helmst.  1717  ;  J.  H.  Stiiss,  De  nataliiiis  lihrorum,  Goth.  1742,  Pt.  I.  ;  Neue 
Beytrdge  v.  alten  u.  neuen  theol.  Biichern,  1755,  III.  ;  Walch,  Bibl.  theoL, 
IV.  167  ft".  ;  S.  Seemiller,  De  bibliis  Complutensibus,  Ingolst.  1785  ;  Roseu- 
miiller,  Handb.,  III.  279  ft.  ;  Hefele,  in  the  Tilb.  Quartahchr.,  1844,  II.  ; 
idem,  Der  Card.  Ximenes,  1851,  p.  113  ft.  ;  Mill,  Prolegg.,  1089  ;  F.  De- 
litzscli,  Studieii  ziir  Entstehungsgeschichte  der  Polyglotte  des  Card.  Ximenes, 
L.  1871.  [Tregelles,  Account  of  the  Printed  Text,  etc.,  pp.  1-19  ;  Seliaff, 
Companion,  p.  232  ft'.] 

The  pi'inting  of  the  work  began  with  the  N.  T.,  edited  by  the  cooperation 
of  Demetrius  Ducas  of  Crete,  Antonius  of  Lebrixa  (Nebrissensis),  James 
Lopez  de  Stunica  and  Ferdinand  Nuiiez  de  Guzman.  This  forms  the  fifth 
volume,  and  is  dated  January  10,  1514.  The  whole  was  completed  in  1517, 
but  the  edition  was  not  sanctioned  by  the  papal  see  until  [March  22d]  1520 
(6  vols,  fol.,  with  Hebrew  text,  LXX.  and  Vulgate).  A  very  peculiar  form 
of  the  letters  in  the  N.  T.  ;  no  breathings,  a  simple  and  jjeculiar  system  of 
accentuation,  and  the  separate  words  numbered  to  point  out  their  corre- 
spondence with  the  Latin  translation. 

The  editors  call  their  chief  source  a  codex  venerandce  vetustatis  ;  but  criti- 
cism has  not  yet  succeeded  in  ascertaining  whence  it  came  nor  whither  it 
went.  Formerly  Cod.  B  was  thought  of.  Possibly  the  note  refers  to  the 
O.  T.  [Tregelles,  Account  of  the  Printed  Text,  etc.,  p.  12  ft.] 

Suspicion  cast  upon  the  N.  T.  on  account  of  alleged  Latinization  (§  360. 
The  passage  1  Jn.  v.  7  was  doubtless  taken  from  the  Vulgate.)  by  Wetstein 
and  Semler.  Controversy  on  this  point  between  J.  M.  Goze  (  Vertheid.  der 
Complut.  Bibel,  1765;  Ausfiihrl.  Vertheid.,  1766  ;  Forts.,  etc.,  1769)  and  Sem- 
ler {Genauere  Unters.,  1766  ;  Samml.  iiber  die  Beweisstellen  St.  2).  On  the 
side  of  the  latter,  J.  N.  Kiefer,  Gerettete  Vermuthungen  iiber  d.  compl.  N.  T., 
1770.  Cf.  Walch,  Neueste  Rel.-Geschichte,  IV.  423  ft.  ;  Wetstein,  Libelli, 
p.  70. 

The  text  of  the  Complutensian  N.  T.  has  only  very  recently  been  reprinted 
in  its  purity  (§  418).  Yet  the  Plantine  editions  (§  403),  and  those  related  to 
them,  hold  to  it  prevailingly.  This  disfavor  is  doubtless  due  in  part  to  eccle- 
siastical separation,  perhaps  more  yet  to  tlie  costliness  of  the  work.  Of 
Complutensian  readings  which  did  not  pass  over  into  the  Plantine  editions 
and  stand  for  the  most  part  wholly  isolated  in  ancient  times,  modern  criti- 
cism has  replaced  many  in  the  text  ;  more  have  commended  themselves  at 
least  to  individual  critics.     Further  see  §  403.    The  printing  is  not  accurate. 


ERASMUS.  411 

Especially  noticeable  are  many  clerical  errors  clue  to  Itacism  ;  c£.  §  371. 
Variants  in  the  margin  are  only  found  in  very  few  and  important  passages, 
e.  g.  Mt.,  vi.  13;  1  Jn.  v.  7.  Parallel  passages  are  more  frequent,  and  there 
is  added  a  Greek  lexicon  and  an  explanation  of  the  proper  names. 

400,  Before  this  work  was  published,  the  enterprising  Basle 
printer,  John  Froben,  had  had  a  separate  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  prepared  by  the  famous  theologian  and  humanist 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam.  Without  proper  preliminary  labor, 
rather  a  commercial  entei'prise  than  a  scientific  undertaking, 
it  was  hastily  prepared,  with  very  insufficient  helps,  and  fault- 
ily printed.  With  more  time  and  increasing  care  the  editor 
corrected  this  latter  fault  in  the  four  following  editions,  so  far 
as  it  was  within  his  power.  The  text  itself,  however,  was  not 
essentially  altered,  and  the  work  is  important  only  as  the  first 
and  most  influential,  not  because  of  its  inner  value.  But  what 
the  gifted  and  learned  author  did  besides,  in  his  own  field,  as- 
sures iiim  an  enduring  place  of  honor  in  the  history  of  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scriptures. 

I.  1516,  folio.  The  sources  were  two  late  Basle  codices  (Gospels  2, 
Acts,  Ejjistles  2),  which  Erasmus  corrected  by  the  aid  of  two  others  (Gos- 
pels, Acts,  Epistles  1,  3)  and  then  sent  to  the  press.  For  the  Apocalypse 
he  had  only  one  MS.  (Apoc.  1)  borrowed  of  J.  Reuchlin,  the  last  leaf  of 
which  had  a  gap,  so  that  he  had  to  retranslate  some  lines  from  the  Vulgate. 
This  MS.,  long  supposed  to  be  lost,  has  lately  been  rediscovered  by  Delitzsch. 
It  places  the  certainly  not  very  careful  and  scientific  pi'ocedure  of  Erasmus 
in  a  yet  more  unfavorable  light  than  it  had  usually  been  regarded  before, 
for  the  whole  N.  T.  (Delitzsch,  Handschriftliche  Funde,  L.  1861  f.,  2  Hefte). 
On  the  title  page  stand  mulli  codices  and  numerous  Fathers,  jjartieularly 
Latin,  to  justify  the  alteration  of  the  annexed  translation  (in  comparison  with 
the  Vulgate).  The  text  is  extremely  defectively  printed,  evidently  accord- 
ing to  an  unorthographically  written  MS.  ;  here  and  there  whole  clauses  and 
parts  of  verses  are  wanting.  In  this  edition  there  is  a  preface  of  the  printer 
afterward  omitted. 

II.  1519,  folio.  The  proof-reading  is  considerably  better,  the  text  only 
very  little  altered,  and,  judged  by  the  criticism  of  to-day,  not  improved. 
This  edition  also  appeared  before  the  publication  of  the  Complutensian,  and 
happens  to  agree  with  it  somewhat  less  often  than  the  first.  It  v/as  the 
source  of  Luther's  version. 

III.  1522,  folio.  The  Complutensian  edition  is  still  without  noteworthy 
influence,  and  the  few  passages  in  which  Erasmus  now  agrees  with  it,  among 
them  1  Jn.  v.  7,  are  drawn  wholly  independently  from  other  sources.  Other- 
wise only  very  few  changes. 

IV.  1527,  folio.  With  a  text  of  the  Apocalypse  altered  in  many  points 
to  agree  with  the  Complutensian,  and  for  the  most  part  happily;  otherwise 
few  new  readings. 

V.  1535,  folio.  Printed  from  the  foregoing  almost  entirely  without 
change.  The  whole  apparatus  of  the  editor  consisted  finally  of  eight  MSS. 
This  edition  has  been  twice  repeated,  1539^1  and  1705,  in  the  Basle  and 
Leyden  complete  editions  of  Erasmus'  works,  though  in  the  latter  with  the 
arbiti'ary  introduction  of  some  Stephanie  readings. 

The  work  is  dedicated  to  Pope  Leo  X.  All  the  editions  have  a  classic 
Latin  translation,  the  fourth  tlie  Vulgate  also  ;  several  other  appendages  be- 


412  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

side,  some  of  which,  however,  do  not  appear  until  the  second  edition  (ratio 
sen  compendium  verce  theol. ;  paradesis  ad  leclorem  ■  apologia  •  critical  revision 
of  the  Vulgate);  also  exegetical  :  introductions  of  Theophylact  to  the  Gos- 
pels, arguments  of  the  editor  to  the  Epistles,  and  a  whole  volume  of  notes, 
which,  however,  is  now  seldom  found,  and  as  an  integral  part  of  the  volume 
containing  the  text.  Cf.  §  543.  Variants  are  found  in  the  margin  of  the 
Apocalypse  from  the  third  edition  on.     On  the  numbering  see  §  386. 

The  Erasmian  editions  have  a  considerable  number  of  readings  which 
never  appeared  again  in  the  following  families  of  texts,  very  few  of  which 
have  been  favored  by  modern  critics.  The  relative  value  of  the  first  two 
recensions  varies  ;  the  Complutensian  readings  are  better  especially  in  the 
Apocalypse,  partly  also  in  the  Gospels  ;  Erasmus  more  often  has  the  advan- 
tage in  the  Epistles  and  Acts. 

Characteristic  signs  of  the  whole  Erasmian  family  (original  editions  and 
reprints) :  Mk.  xi.  26  is  lacking  ;  xiii.  9  :  axQri<TicrQi  ]  2  Pet.  i.  8  :  avpaKrovs ', 
Rev.  ii.  13  :  riixepais  ifxais-  —  No  verse  division. 

For  literary-historical  references,  also  on  the  many  contentions  which  arose 
because  of  the  work,  see  Masch,  p.  281  ff.  ;  Lork,  Bibelgeschiclite,  II.  25  ff.; 
Matth£ei,  N.  T.,  XII.  220  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  VI.  189;  Hall.  Bibl.,  I. 
379. 

[Cf .  on  Erasmus  the  monographs  of  Miiller,  1828,  Drummond,  1873,  Gilly, 
1879,  and  the  article  Erasmus,  by  Stiihelin,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.,  IV.  278- 
290,  new  ed.  (abridged  in  Schaff's  EncycL,  I.  753.] 

401.  From  these  two  original  editions  came  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  as  it  was  circulated  down  to  the  last  quarter  of 
the  last  century,  and  still  is  circulated,  chiefly,  to-day.  During 
this  whole  period  all  critical  activity  consisted,  and  still  does 
consist,  in  part,  in  a  mere  superficial  improvement  of  the  text 
first  printed,  by  means  of  gradually  increasing  helps  timidly 
used ;  soon,  indeed,  in  a  mere  mingling  of  the  readings  of  dif- 
ferent current  editions,  helps  being  completely  neglected.  In 
the  period  immediately  following,  however,  people  were  con- 
tent with  reprints  of  the  Erasmian  editions. 

Editions  of  the  Erasmian  family:  I.  From  the  first  edition  :  the  N.  T.  in 
the  Greek  Bible  of  the  Aldine  press  at  Venice,  1518,  fol.,  with  a  dedication 
by  Francis  Asulanus  to  Erasmus.  Without  chapter  divisions.  By  no  means 
all  the  errors  of  Erasmus  are  corrected.  Some  new  readuigs  from  an  un- 
known source,  of  which  most  happen  to  agree  with  the  Complutensian,  sev- 
eral may  possibly  have  been  only  happy  corrections.  The  work  is  very  rare. 
Delitzsch,  Handschriftl.  Funde,  I.  62.  —  From  this  a  N.  T.,  Venice,  1538,  A. 
de  Sabio. 

II.  From  the  second  edition  :  Hagenau,  T.  Anshelm,  by  N.  Gerbel,  1521, 
4°,  also  without  chapter  divisions,  formerly  regarded  as  Luther's  source,  and 
famous  from  its  supposed  rarity.  Few  alterations.  —  Strassburg,  W.  Kopf- 
fel  (Cephalaeus),  by  J.  Lonitzer,  1524.  A  faulty  reprint  of  the  foregoing 
with  unimportant  alflerations.  —  Venice,  1533,  A.  de  Sabio  ;  Paul  only. 

III.  From  the  third  edition  :  Basle,  J.  Bebel,  by  J.  Ceporinus,  with  pref- 
ace by  Q^^colampadius,  1524,  1531,  1535  ;  has  a  small  number  of  pecidiar 
readings  and  corrections.  Characteristic  of  this  class  :  Rev.  xviii.  7:  roaovrov 
Kepdaare ;  and  together  with  II.  :  Acts  xxi.  3  :  avacpavevros  ttjj  Kvnpov.  The 
Bebel  editions  differ  extremely  little  from  one  another. 

The  first  edition  of  Bebel  repeated,  Ziirich,  1547,  C.  Froschaupr  ;  the 
third,  Basle,  J.  Walder,  1536  (miniature  edition,  with  patristic  additions); 


STEPHENS.  413 

the  same,  Basle,  T.  Plater,  1538,  1540,  1544  (copies  dated  1543) ;  the  same, 
Basle,  N.  Bryliuger,  1543  ;  the  same,  Basle,  H.  Curio,  1545.  Eiich  of  these 
editions  has  some  unimportant  peculiarities. 

IV.  From  the  fourth  edition  ;  Louvain,  Rescius,  1531. 

V.  From  the  fifth  edition  :  simply  re[)rinted  with  scarcely  any  alterations 
worthy  of  mention,  A.  Osiander,  Ev.  Harmonie,  Basle,  1537,  15G1,  fol.,  and 
N.  T.,  H.  Frohen,  1541,  fol. —The  latter  also  1545,  4°,  with  some  Behel 
readings,  and  from  this  a  second,  N.  Brylinger,  1548,  and  the  N.  T.  in  tho 
Greek  Bible  of  J.  Herwag,  1545,  fol.  (Characteristic  of  this  last  class,  Rev. 
xxii.  21,  iravroiy  Tjixuiu.") 

VI.  From  the  same,  but  with  the  introduction  of  several  Bebel  and  some 
peculiar  readings  (Characteristic  of  the  class,  2  Pet.  ii.  18  :  wras.)  :  the 
Gr£eco-Latiu  editions  of  N.  Brylinger,  1542,  1544,  154G,  1549,  1550,  very- 
similar  to  one  another  but  very  shabby.  (For  later  editions,  see  §  403.) 
The  earliest  bilingual  edition  of  this  series  (1541)  is  somewhat  more  closely 
related  to  the  preceding  class. 

VII.  The  edition  printed  by  Charlotte  Guillard,  Par.  1543  (by  Jaques 
Toussaint,  Professor  at  Paris  ?),  is  based  upon  that  of  Bubel,  bvit  introduces 
in  the  Apocalypse  several  improvements  from  the  last  Erasmian,  and  has 
beside  a  small  number  of  wholly  peculiar  readings,  some  of  which  are  found 
in  the  Complutensian  or  in  Colines,  from  an  unknown  source.  —  Reprint, 
J.  Dupuis,  Par.  1549.  Both  editions  give  the  names  of  various  different 
booksellers  on  the  title  page,  so  that  there  are  several  kinds  of  copies  ;  the 
first  those  of  J.  Roigny  and  J.  Bogard,  the  second  those  of  M.  Fezandat, 
R.  Gran  Jon,  H.  and  Dion,  de  Marnef. 

402.  Meanwliile  some  otherwise  famous  men  of  the  sixteenth 
century  were  endeavoring,  by  comparison  of  new  and  more 
numerous  manuscripts,  to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  purification 
of  the  text.  It  proceeded  the  more  rapidly  for  a  time  because 
it  was  supposed  that  the  necessary  rules  and  skill  were  at  hand 
from  the  critical  study  of  the  classics.  In  general,  in  every 
new  work  of  this  kind  some  former  one  was  made  the  basis, 
and  improvements  were  introduced  sparingly.  For  the  most 
part,  also,  it  was  learned  printers  who  either  undertook  the 
work  themselves,  or  selected  and  employed  men  of  science 
for  it.  Among  the  first  deserves  to  be  mentioned,  before  all, 
Robert  Stepliens,  who,  unfortunately  not  with  the  highest 
degree  of  skill,  availed  himself  of  the  treasures  of  the  royal 
library  at  Paris,  actively  aided  by  his  no  less  distinguished  son 
Henry.  His  editions  became  of  great  importance  for  the  period 
subsequent. 

A.  Recension  of  the  Parisian  printer  S.  de  Colines  (Colinaeus),  1534 
('Ev  AeuKerla),  shabby  and  rare,  but  especially  distinguished  by  the  adoption  of 
many  readings  from  ancient  sources.  It  is  based,  as  is  clear  from  the  Apoc- 
alypse, upon  the  third  of  Erasmus  ;  it  alters  the  text  more  frequently,  and 
happily,  according  to  the  Complutensian  (apparently),  but  very  often,  also 
(if  not  everywhere),  according  to  MSS.  (especially  in  the  Ejjistles)  where 
modern  criticism  in  most  cases  agrees.  Some  alterations  might  seem  arbi- 
trary ;  at  least  this  was  the  opinion  of  contemporaries. 

B.  Much  less  independent  are  the  two  recensions  of  Robt.  Stephens 
(Stephanus),  imprimeur  du  roi  at  Paris.  The  first,  in  two  neat  manual 
editions,  known   among  bibliographers  by  the  first  words  of   the  preface. 


414  HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT. 

0  mirificam,  without  particular  indication  of  sources  or  their  use.  I.  1546, 
with  a  small  but  incomplete  list  of  typograpliical  errors.  It  follows  Erasmus 
mostly,  but  adopts  a  considerable  number  of  Complutensian  readings.  That 
which  is  new  and  peculiar  to  itself  is  unimportant.  —  II.  1511),  said  to  be  with- 
out typographical  errors,  because  no  list  of  them  is  aftixed,  only  slightly 
different  from  the  preceding. 

C.  The  second  Stephanie  recension,  down  to  the  present  day  most  fre- 
quently of  all  older  editions  used  as  a  standard  ;  iirst,  III.  Paris,  1550,  fol. 
{edUio  regia),  beautiful  presswork  ;  in  the  margin  parallel  passages  and 
variants  from  the  Complutensian  and  fifteen  MSS.,  among  which  was  Cod.  L. 
It  abandons  many  Complutensian  readings  and  follows  Erasmus  instead. 
Almost  nothing  new.  In  the  Epistles  and  Apocalypse  Erasmus  is  retained 
almost  unaltered.  Ancient  and  modern  chapter  division,  Eusebian  Canons 
and  numbering,  patriotic  introductions  to  the  separate  books,  etc.  [Repub- 
lished by  F.  H.  Scrivener,  Camb.  1859  ;  new  edition,  1877,  with  the  variations 
of  Beza  (15G5),  Elzevir  (1624),  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles.] 
IV.  Geneva,  1551,  2  Pts.,  16°;  first  edition  with  verse  division  ;  the  rarest 
and  least  beautiful  of  the  series,  with  Erasmus'  translation  and  the  Vulgate. 
The  text  of  the  preceding  altered  in  but  few  places,  but  important  as  the 
immediate  source  of  the  textus  receptus. 

Cf.  in  general  Mdl,  1155  fE.,  1220  fP.;  Baumgarten,  Nadir.,  I.  195  ;  II.  5, 
471  ;  IV.  377  ;  Semler,  Vorher.,  IV.  361 ;  E.  Reuss,  Art.  Stephanus  in  Her- 
zog's  Encijkl. 

Characteristic  of  the  first  Stephanie  recension  2  Tim.  iv.  13  :  <pi\<iivy\u ;  of 
the  second  (Ed.  III.)  1  Pet.  iii.  11  omits  ayadhv  CnT-nadTu ;  of  the  third  (Ed. 
IV.)  Col.  i.  20  omits  Si'  avTov- 

On  the  alleged  separate  recension  of  Crispin,  see  the  following  section. 

403.  The  slight  results  of  the  labors  of  the  last  named  editors, 
though  undertaken  with  great  pains  and  much  zeal,  inasmuch 
as  no  attention  whatever  was  paid  to  the  first  improved  recen- 
sion, and  tiie  second  even  took  a  step  backward,  leads  us  to 
suspect  that  science  had  at  that  time  already  arrived  at  the 
stage  which  she  was  able  to  reach  with  the  means  at  hand,  and 
which  the  age  was  able  to  bear.  Indeed  we  might  introduce 
even  here  the  expression  Textus  Receptus,  which  is  generally 
applied  only  to  a  later  recension  (if  it  is  still  to  be  used  at 
all) ;  for  the  text  was  not  essentially  altered  from  that  already 
fixed  upon  until  a  much  more  modern  and  propitious  age  ; 
observing,  however,  what  has  always  been  overlooked,  that 
there  was  a  double  form  of  this  text,  as  there  was  once  a  two- 
fold original  edition,  and  that  only  ignorance  or  prejudice  could 
have  allowed  the  better  of  them  to  be  so  utterly  forgotten  in 
modern  times. 

A.  The  Stephanie  Family,  in  which,  according  to  §  402,  with  an  Erasmian 
basis,  a  number  of  Complutensian,  and  a  smaller  number  of  new  Stephanie 
readings  occur  :  — 

First  Class  :  The  edition  of  1546  repeated  :  Paris,  1549,  printed  by  Prevot 
for  Birkmann  or  Haultin  ;  handsome  but  inaccurate.  —  Paris,  1568  (Copies 
dated  1569),  Robt.  Stephens,  the  son.  —  Frankfurt,  at  Wechel's  press,  1597, 
fol.,  with  LXX. ;  reprinted,  Venice,  1687,  fol.,  N.  Dulci  {rxvKus).  —  Frankfurt, 
Wechel,  1600,  small  size.  All  these  editions  depart  here  and  there  from 
their  original,  and  are  independent  of  one  another. 


TEXTUS   EECEPTUS.  415 

Second  Class  :  Repetitions  of  the  edition  of  1550. 

First  Group:  Basle,  Uporin,  155U;  Basle,  Bry linger,  1553  and  1558  (Greek 
only) ;  Frankfurt,  Wechel,  IGOl,  fol.,  with  all  the  critical  and  exegetical  ad- 
ditions of  Stephens  ;  London,  Bill,  1(3215  ;  Strassburg,  Miilb,  edited  by  J.  H. 
Bdcler,  1645.  All  these  are  independent  of  one  another,  and  alter  the 
Stephanie  text  either  not  at  all,  or  in  very  few  passages  only.  Bocler's  second 
more,  see  §  406.  Here  belong  also,  according  to  their  title-page,  several 
modern,  undated  Cambridge  editions  which  I  have  not  seen  ;  one  of  which 
has  an  English  translation  by  J.  Scholetield. 

Second  Group:  (Crispiuic  Text)  Geneva,  1553,  with  preface  by  the  printer, 
J.  C.  Ci'ispin;  Greek  titles,  superscriptions  of  chapters,  parallels,  variants  iu 
the  margin  ;  differs  from  Stephens  in  several  passages.  This  text  repeated, 
with  all  its  appendages  :  Zurich,  Froschauer,  1559  and  1566  ;  Basle,  Brylin- 
ger,  1563  (Greek  only) ;  Leipzig,  Vogeliu,  1563  (1564),  15*J5.  The  last  three 
agree  in  some  passages  with  the  earlier  editions  of  Bi-ylinger.  Characteristic 
of  the  group  :  Jn.  i.  28,  fir]6l3apa,  or  1  Pet.  iii.  7  :  ^orjs  (sic). 

Tliird  Group  :  The  text  of  the  third  Stephens  edition  is  also  found  in  sev- 
eral later  editions,  which,  on  account  of  their  other  critical  additions,  we  shall 
have  to  mention  jiarticularly  below  (§  407  f.);  Walton,  Mill,  Birsch,  and  the 
editions  dependent  oil  them. 

Third  Class  :  Repetitions  of  the  edition  of  1551. 

First  Group  :  The  second  edition  of  Crispin,  Geneva,  1564  (1565) ;  Basle, 
Perna,  1570,  fol.,  with  the  Glossa  Compendiai-ia  of  Flacius  (§  548).  Both  of 
these  editions  with  isolated  alterations  and  independent  of  each  other  ;  the 
latter  reprinted,  Frankf .,  Beyer,  1659,  fol. 

Second  Group  :  Wittenb.,  S.  Selfisch,  1583  (?  a  title-page  edition  of  it, 
Amst.,  Jeger,  1583),  1605  (Title-page  ed.  1606),  1618,  1623.  —  Strassb.,  T. 
Riehl,  the  only  undated  edition  of  older  times  (before  1596).  —  N.  T.  poly- 
glott.,  ed.  by  D.  Wolder,  Hamb.,  Lucius,  1596,  fol.  —  Giessen,  Hampel,  1669 
(Title-page  edition,  Frankf.,  Wiist,  1673  ;  copies  of  both  on  large  paper,  4°). 
—  All  these  editions  contain  the  same  text,  that  of  the  fourth  Stephens 
edition,  with  some  alterations.  Characteristic  :  Mk.  iv.  21  :  Kaierai  and  Rev. 
iii.  12  :  Kaw  at  the  same  time.  For  a  continuation  of  this  series,  see  §  405. 
All  these  editions  have  Erasmus'  translation,  his  arguments,  a  Sunima  totius 
Scr.  and  an  Index  theol. 

B.  The  Erasmo-Stephanic  family,  in  which,  with  an  Erasmian  basis, 
a  fsmall  number  of  Stephanie  readings  occur. 

First  Group  :  Tlie  later  Brylinger  family  :  Basle,  1553,  1556,  1558,  1562, 
1564,  1566,  1571,  1577  ;  Basle,  Osten,  1588  ;  Leipzig,  Vogelin,  1563,  1565, 
1570  ;  Leipzig,  Steinmann,  1578,  1582,  1588  ;  Leipzig,  Lanzenberger,  1591, 
1594,  1599  ;  Frankfurt,  Palthen,  1596  ;  all  with  Latin  translation,  without 
verse  numbering,  and  line  for  line  throughout  like  one  another  and  those 
mentioned  in  §  401,  VI.  Also,  Greek  only,  Basle,  Brylinger,  1586,  with  verse 
division.  Finally,  Frankfurt,  Endter,  1661.  Characteristics  :  Mk.  xvi.  8  : 
raxecos,  2  Pet.  ii.  18  :  buras.  The  number  of  Stephanie  readings  adopted  in- 
creases in  this  series  ;  the  editions  of  1562, 1563, 1566,  and  1586  in  particular 
are  innovations  in  this  respect. 

Second  Group  :  Lyons,  De  Tournes  (Tornsesius),  1559  ;  text  of  Guillard 
(§  401,  VII.),  mingled  with  Stephanie  readings.  —  Title-page  edition,  Lyons, 
Roussin,  1597. 

Third  Group  :  Basle,  Barbier  and  Courteau,  1559  (1560)  ;  also  Zurich, 
1559,  fol.  reckoned  by  some  as  the  first  edition  of  Beza,  because  of  the  trans- 
lation of  Beza  printed  with  it.  The  Stephanie  text  is  sometimes  altered  ac- 
cording to  Brylinger's. 

Fourth  Group  :  The  text  in  the  famous  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  begun 
by  M.  Chemnitz,  carried  on  by  P.  Leyser,  and  completed  by  J.  Gerhard 
(§  555),  printed  at  first  synoptically  and  afterward  mingled  with  the  text. 


416  HISTORY   OF   THE  PRINTED   TEXT. 

The  older  portions,  printed  in  parts,  1593-lGlG,  have  a  text  nearly  related 
to  that  of  liryling-er.  Frankfurt  and  Leipzig,  by  various  printers,  and  freq. 
The  portion  written  by  Gerliard,  in  two  divisions,  of  wliieli  tlie  last  appeared 
first,  Jena,  1G17  and  IGliG,  is  the  Stephanie  text  almost  unchanged.  Fii'st 
and  third  parts,  Geneva,  Berjon,  1G28,  fol.  Complete  editions,  Geneva, 
Chouet,  IGio,  fol.  ;  Frankfurt,  Hertel,  1652,  fol.  ;  llamb.  Hertel,  1704,  fol. 
Several  unknown  to  me  are  mentioned  by  Le  Long  and  Fabricius. 

C.  The  Flantine  family,  in  which,  with  a  Complutensian  basis,  there  oc- 
curs a  proportionately  small  number  of  Erasmo-Stephanic  readings,  and  al- 
most no  others.  The  statement  (Hefele,  Ximenes,  134)  that  these  are  mere 
reprints  of  the  Conipluteusian  is  erroneous. 

First,  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  Vol.  V.,  printed  by  C.  Plantin,  prepared 
by  Ceued.  Arias  Montanus  (de  la  Sierra),  1571,  fol.,  and  therefrom,  with 
slight  variations,  in  the  Parisian  Polyglot  (§  407),  1G30,  fol.  The  Antwerp 
Polyglot  contains,  as  Vol.  VII.,  still  another  copy  of  the  N.  T.,  with  the 
date  1572,  and  with  the  Vulgate,  revised  by  the  editor,  printed  between  the 
lines.  The  latter  has  been  the  source  of  numerous  reprints.  It  frequently 
varies  from  the  first.  The  Polyglot  has  in  its  principal  text  critical  signs 
for  additions  and  omissions,  which,  however,  are  not  retained  in  the  reprints. 
Variants  only  in  a  few  editions,  and  sparingly,  in  the  margin.  The  Themata 
verballa  for  school  boys,  in  most,  and  the  above  interlinear  version  in  many. 

Antwerp,  C.  Plantin,  1573,  1574,  1583,  all  Greek  only  ;  1584,  Grseco- 
Latin  ;  the  last  only  folio  ;  Leyden,  F.  Rapheleng,  1591,  IGOl,  1G12,  1013. 
Most  of  the  Plantine  editions  cive  forma  minima.  —  Paris,  1584,  4°,  Prevoteau, 
with  Syriac  and  Latin  translation  (also  copies  158G,  Le  Bouc).  The  Gospels 
with  commentary  by  Lucas  of  Briigge,  1G06,  fol. 

Heidelberg,  H.  Commelin,  1599,  fol.,  (Title-page  edition,  IGIG)  with  the 
translation.  The  same  edition,  set  in  8°,  with  the  dates  1599,  1602,  and 
Lyons,  Vincent,  1599  ;  Geneva,  1599  ;  all  one  and  the  same  title-page  edi- 
tion. 

Geneva  editions  :  Pierre  de  la  Roviere,  with  the  translation,  (n)  sine  loco, 
1609,  fol.,  and  Aurel.  Allobr.,  8°  (the  same  edition)  ;  (b)  Aurel.  or  Colon. 
Allobr.,  1010-11  ;  (c)  sine  loco,  1619,  fol.  and  8°  ;  also  Aurel.  Allobr.,  1619, 
1631,  8°  (all  the  same  edition)  ;  without  the  translation,  (rf)  Aurel.  Allobr., 
imd,fonn.  min.  ;  (e)  Colon.  Allobr.,  1619,  I6I1O,  4°  ;  also  Geneva,  1620,  4° 
(differing  in  title  page  only)  ;  Jacob  Stoer,  sine  loco,  1627  ;  S.  Crispin,  sine 
loco,  1612,  1622.  —  From  1612  on  still  more  Stephanie  readings  enter  into 
this  group. 

The  Plantine  text  has  been  repeated  in  later  times  :  Leipzig,  Kirchner, 
1657,  fol.  ;  Vienna,  Kaliwoda,  1740  ;  Mayence,  Varrentrapp  (edited  by  H. 
Goldhagen),  1753  ;  Liittich,  Kersten,  1839  ;  and  the  Harmony  of  J.  A. 
Rotermundt,  Passaii,  Ambrosi,  1835. 

The  number  of  peculiar  readings,  nowhere  else  printed  (agreeing  with  the 
Complutensian)  is  very  great  ;  as  a  characteristic  (against  the  Compluten- 
sian) may  serve  Acts  v.  24  :  o  re  apx^epeis. 

404.  But  another  more  independent  recension  of  this  period 
remains  to  be  noticed.  The  critical  collections  of  the  younger 
Stephens,  which  he  had  increased  still  more  by  his  journeys, 
came  into  the  hands  of  Theodore  Beza,  renowned  for  his  part 
in  the  Reformation  in  France,  who  himself  possessed  several 
veiy  old,  formerly  unknown  manuscripts,  and  who  even  began 
to  collate  the  Oriental  versions.  He  issued  a  series  of  editions 
in  which  the  original  was  accompanied  by  a  translation  of  his 
own,  in  which,  however,  the  Stephens  text  was  but  seldom 


BEZA.  417 

changed  and  not  always  happily.  A  man  of  affairs  and  of  the 
Chuicli,  he  lacked  the  necessary  tact  in  the  little  matters  of 
criticism,  and  doubtless  also  the  courage  to  maintain  what  he 
saw  to  be  better  in  opposition  to  custom.  His  tianslation  often 
expresses  a  wholly  different  reading  from  the  text  standing  by 
the  side  of  it,  and  his  notes,  important  as  they  are  from  a  the- 
ological point  of  view,  sufficiently  show  that  it  was  already  too 
late  and  yet  much  too  early  for  the  task  that  was  here  pre- 
sented. 

Beza  himself,  to  whom  his  translation  was  of  more  importance  than  the 
criticism  of  the  text,  counted  in  the  first  edition,  Latin  alone,  1557  (the  Greek 
N.  T.  of  1559,  mentioned  in  §  403,  api^eared  without  Beza's  cooperation),  so 
that  the  first  Grrseco-Latin  edition,  15G5,  is  called  Ed.  II. 

[On  the  life  and  labors  of  Beza,  see  the  works  of  La  Faye,  Gen.  1606, 
Schlosser,  Heidelb.  1809,  Baum,  L.  1843  and  1851,  and  Heppe,  Elberf. 
1861  ;  also  the  article  Beza  in  Schaft'-Herzog's  Encycl.,  I.,  255  tt'.] 

The  proper  Bezan  editions  are  partly  large,  partly  small,  the  former  folio, 
with  the  Vulgate  and  the  new  translation,  a  full  commentary  with  index,  dedi- 
cated to  Queen  Elizabeth  ;  the  latter  8°,  dedicated  to  the  Prince  of  Conde, 
do  not  have  the  Vulgate  (with  the  exception  of  the  third),  and  instead  of 
the  commentary  marginal  notes,  which,  from  the  third  on,  are  collected 
from  Beza  by  Loiseleur  Villier  and  J.  Cherpont.  These  editions  are  not  al- 
together alike  as  to  text.  Most  of  them  do  not  state  the  place  of  printing 
(Geneva),  and  are  often  erroneously  marked  Paris  in  the  catalogues  of  li- 
braries and  book-stores. 

A.  Genuine  Bezan  editions. 

First  Group  :  I.  Principal  edition  (Geneva),  H.  Stephens,  1565,  fol.  Ba- 
sis, Stephens  iV.  The  changes  made  agree  in  part  with  the  Complutensian 
or  Erasmus,  but  are  in  part  wholly  new  readings.  By  no  means  all  of  Be- 
za's changes  have  been  approved  by  modern  critics.  Repeated,  Geneva, 
1565,  1567,  manual  editions,  and  1569,  fol.  with  the  Syriac  text,  without  im- 
portant difference.     (Title-page  edition  of  the  last,  Lyons,  1571.) 

Second  Group  :  The  remaining  large  editions,  for  which  Beza  collated 
Codd.  D  Cantahr.  and  D  Clarom.  (§  392),  as  well  as  the  Peshito  and  Arabic 
versions;  yet  without  arriving  at  more  than  a  few  improvements,  which  were 
afterward  altogether  neglected  in  criticism.  II.  Geneva,  1582,  fol.  ;  III. 
Geneva,  1589  (also  copies  dated  1588),  fol.  IV.  Vignon,  Geneva,  1598  (also 
copies  without  this  name)  fol.  The  last  edition  reprinted  by  Daniel,  Cam- 
bridge, 1642,  fol.  The  first  in  the  Libri  hist.  N.  T.,  with  commentary,  by 
B.  Walseus,  Leyden,  Wyngaerden,  1652,  4°.  (Title-page  edition,  Ravesteiii, 
Amst.  1662)  ;  some  readings,  however,  were  adopted  from  the  fourth. 

It  is  to  be  observed  also  that  Beza  both  tacitly,  in  the  translation,  and  ex- 
pressly, in  the  notes,  commended  many  readings  which  he  did  not  receive 
into  his  text.  His  choice  in  these  cases  is  often  happy;  unfortunately  no  suc- 
ceeding editor  took  the  hint.  No  characteristic  signs  can  be  given  for  the 
genuine  Bezan  editions,  since  all  the  innovations  of  the  first  group  have 
passed  over  into  the  Elzevir  editions  ;  yet  we  mention,  by  way  of  example, 
as  introduced  by  Beza,  the  now  altogether  rejected  readings  :  Rom.  vii.  6, 
airodavdyTos  ;  Rev.  xi.  1  adds  ku]  6  ayyeXos  eia-rriKet ;  and  the  generally  approved  : 
Acts  ix.  35,  rhv  'S.dpoova. ;  for  the  second  group  :  1  Cor.  xv.  55,  v^Kot-  and  KevTpov 
transposed;  and,  also  now  generally  approved:  Acts  xvi.  1,  irvivfxa'l-naov; 
Ja.  ii.  18,  x'^P^^- 

B.  Semi-Bezan  editions  :  — 

First  Group  :  Editions  of  H.  Stephens,  Geneva,  1576,  1587,  1604,  small 
27 


418  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

size,  without  translation.  The  first  with  the  famous  preface  of  the  editor  on 
the  laugiiage  of  the  N.  T.  (§  47)  ;  the  following  with  another  upon  the  an- 
cient chajjter  division.  They  have  much  in  common  with  Beza  and  some 
peculiar  readings,  as  if  the  two  critics  had  used  the  same  helps  and  had  done 
their  work  partly  in  conjunction.  The  edition  of  1587  reprinted  by  Vautrol- 
lier,  London,  with  some  readings  from  1582. 

Second  Group  :  Later  manual  edition  with  Beza's  preface  and  translation, 
Stephens  (Geneva),  1580  ;  Vignon,  1590,  1604,  IGll.  (Copies  of  the  latter 
also  by  S.  Crispin.)  They  have  most  of  the  peculiar  readings  of  the  first 
group. 

Third  Group  :  Slightly  changed  reprints  of  the  edition  of  157G  :  Typogr. 
reg.,  London,  1592  ;  Harsy,  Lyons,  1599-lGOO,  2  vols.,  and  by  Harsy's 
widow,  1611  ;  Stoer,  Geneva,  1609,  1625  ;  by  various  jjrinters,  London, 
1653,  1664,  1672,  1674,  with  notes  by  C.  Hoole  ;  Emery,  Paris,  1715  (the 
title-page  states  a  wholly  different  source)  ;  and  in  the  Commentary  of  J. 
Price,  Flesher,  London,  1660,  fol. 

Characteristic  of  this  family  (B.) :  Mt.  i.  11  adds  laKiijx ;  Mt.  ix.  18,  &pxov 

TtJ. 

C.  The  strange  edition  of  E.  Lubinus,  Pedanus,  Rostock,  1G14,  3  vols., 
with  Latin  and  German  interlinear  translation,  the  order  of  the  Greek  words 
changed  to  corresjiond  with  the  German  in  usum  tironum,  and  the  readmgs 
of  the  two  classes  just  mentioned  mingled.  (Title-page  editions,  Hallerfeld, 
Rostock,  1617  ;  Ferber,  Rostock,  1626  ;  Janson,  Amst.  1614.) 

405.  Beza's  work  was  the  last  feeble  attempt  for  more  than 
a  century  to  improve  the  text  by  means  of  manuscripts  and 
other  ancient  witnesses.  His  successors  did  no  more  than  to 
make  choice  from  among  the  existing  printed  readings,  and 
thus  arose  at  their  hands  a  series  of  mixed  editions,  in  whose 
preparation  no  preliminary  critical  researches  whatever  are  to 
be  supposed.  The  case  was  simplest  and  easiest  where  Ste- 
phens and  Beza  were  mingled,  —  the  latest,  and  among  Prot- 
estants, by  the  displacement  of  the  pure  Erasmian,  the  most 
widely  current,  —  since  but  a  small  number  of  passages  came 
in  question.  The  mingling  of  Stephanie  and  Plantine  read- 
ings was  a  matter  of  greater  extent,  but  also  more  rare.  The 
most  noteworthy  point  in  all  this  is  that  notwithstanding  the 
anxious  clinging  of  theologians  to  the  letter,  which  has  been 
the  greatest  hindrance  to  criticism,  no  scientific  conception  of 
the  inviolability  of  the  attested  text  seems  to  have  existed. 

A.  Stephano-Bezan  family. 

First  Group  :  Werlin,  Tiibingen,  prepared  by  M.  HafenrefPer,  1618,  4°. 
Reprint  of  the  third  Stephens  edition  with  the  introduction  of  some  few  Bry- 
linger  and  Bezan  readings,  from  Beza's  first  edition,  with  statement  of  vari- 
ants at  the  end  of  each  chapter. 

Second  Group  :  Reprint  of  the  fourth  Stephens  edition  in  the  form  given 
it  by  Selfisch  (§  403),  with  the  introduction  of  a  small  number  of  readings 
from  the  first  recension  of  Beza.  First  issued  by  Borhek,  Wittenb.,  1622, 
4°,  with  the  cooperation  of  E.  Schmid,  at  the  cost  of  Bishop  Nicephorus  of 
Thessalonica,  with  Greek  title,  intended  for  the  Orient  ;  then  by  Selfisch, 
Wittenb.,  1635,  with  Erasmus'  translation,  tables  of  contents.  Index  theoL, 
and  other  additions  ;  Wiist,  Wittenb.  1661  ;  Mevius,  Frankf.,  1653  ;  Wiist, 
Frankf,  1674,  1686,  1693,  1700.     Here  also  may  be  placed  the  edition,  with 


MIXED   EDITIONS  -  ELZEVIRS.  419 

translation  and  commentary,  of  Erasmus  Schmid,  Niirnb.,  1G5S,  fol.,  wLicla, 
however,  departs  somewhat  more  frequently  from  Stephens,  and  even  has 
some  new  readings  of  its  own.  Characteristic,  at  least  of  most.  Rev.  ii.  5  : 
ev  rdx^t. 

Third  Group  :  Reprint  of  the  fourth  Stephens  edition,  with  a  few  read- 
ings from  Beza's  iirst  recension,  and  some  peculiar  ones,  all  of  which,  how- 
ever, do  not  appear  at  the  very  first :  E.  Vignon  (Geneva),  1574,  1584, 
1587  ;  J.  Vignon,  Geneva,  1615  ;  Paul  Stephens  (Geneva),  1(317  ;  J.  Crispin 
(Geneva),  1G32  (Title-page  edition  J.  De  Tournes)  ;  1).  Frere,  London, 
1648.  As  to  external  make-up  these  editions  belong  with  the  later  Stephens 
editions,  1576  fi.  (§  404).  They  have  variants  in  the  margin  and  exegeti- 
cal  notes  by  Is.  Casaubon.  Characteristic  :  Acts  vii.  48  omits  vao7s  and  Jn. 
xviii.  1  rov  KeSpaiv  at  the  same  time.  As  to  text  alone  the  edition  of  J. 
de  Tournes  and  J.  de  la  Pierre  (Geneva),  1632,  belongs  here. 

Fourth  Group  :  Blaeu,  Amst.  1633  ;  on  the  basis  of  Beza,  1589,  readings 
from  Robt.  Stephens,  II.  1549. 

B.  Stepliano-Pl.antine  family.     Not  related  to  one  another. 
(1.)  Mylius,   Cologne,   1592.     Retains   fully  two  thirds  of  all   Plantine 
readings  and  replaces  the  rest  by  Stephanie  ;  also  has  a  small  number  from 
Brylinger. 

(2.)  E.  Hutter,  Niirnb.  1599,  fol.,  in  tAvelve  languages,  and  1602,  4°  (cop- 
ies by  Walschaert,  Amst.  1615)  in  four.  On  the  editor,  see  Umch.  Nachr., 
1716,  p.  392.  In  this  edition  are  Plantine  and  Stephanie  readings  in  nearly 
equal  numbers,  beside  some  from  Beza  and  others.  The  editor  frequently 
introduces  into  the  text  manuscript  glosses,  nay  even  fancies  of  his  own,  or 
additions  translated  from  the  Vulgate,  and  orthodox  Lutheran  Dicta  prohan- 
tia  fabricated  by  him  with  naive  audacity,  beside  some  real  critical  improve- 
ments. 

(3.)  J.  de  Tournes,  Geneva,  1628  (copies  sine  loco  and  Aurel.  Allobr.)  ; 
also  Geneva,  1628  (copies  with  1629),  the  latter  with  Beza's  translation  and 
the  Frencli.  In  the  former  Plantine  readings  very  largely  prevailed,  in  the 
latter  Stephanie. 

In  every  one  of  these  three  (four)  recensions  the  selection  of  Plantine  and 
Stephanie  readings  is  different. 

406.  The  most  famous  and  widely  circulated  of  these  mixed 
editions  based  chiefly  upon  Beza's  recension  is  that  which  has 
made  the  name  of  the  Elzevir  family  of  Dutch  printers  a  much 
mentioned  one  in  the  history  of  the  text  even  to-day.  _  They 
made  the  need  of  theologians  of  a  fixed  text  the  basis  of  a 
clever  and  successful  business  speculation,  by  announcing, 
without  furtlier  comment,  that  their  neat  manual  editions, 
which  were  distinguished  for  beauty  and  correctness,  contained 
the  text  received  by  everybody,  which  soon  became  the  actual 
fact,  at  least  through  large  regions.  In  consequence  the  slight 
degree  of  liarmless  and  irregular  freedom  which  had  been  al- 
lowed in  the  criticism  of  readings  almost  entirely  disappeared 
in  the  learned  world.  The  petty  literalism  of  the  schools 
finally  made  variants  a  dangerous  thing,  forbade  criticism,  and 
the  text  just  as  it  stood  became  a  part  of  orthodoxy.  Yet  this 
fact,  though  undeniable,  is  not  to  be  taken  in  the  strictest 
sense. 

Edd.   ElzeviriancB ;    famous    also   in   classical   literature   and   otherwise, 


420  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

printed  at  Leyden  and  Amsterdam,  mostly  (the  N.  T.  always)  in  forma 
m'tnlma.  Leyden,  1G*^4,  HVSd  (Preface  :  textum  ergo  hahes  nunc  ah  omnibus 
receptum  in  quo  nihil  iinmuUUum  aut  corruptum  dainus  .  .  .  J'ormain  ■Tepi(p6priTou 
Ka\  ivwvov  h.  e.  oKijriv  re  pariter  koI  <piXr\v],  1641  ;  Amst.,  1G50,  IGG:;!,  1G70, 
1678.  Yet  the  third  edition,  on  account  of  several  peculiar  readings,  really 
ought  not  to  he  hrouglit  into  this  series  at  all  (see  Note  8). 

[For  a  liistory  of  the  Elzevir  family  and  a  list  of  their  publications,  see 
Les  Elzeoier,  Hisloire  et  Annales  typographiques,  by  Alphonse  Willems,  Brus- 
sels and  Paris,  1880,  2  vols.] 

The  text  of  the  first  edition,  which  is  usually  regarded  to-day  as  the  gen- 
uine and  normal  representation  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  but  in  reality  is  so 
no  more  than  many  others,  is  by  no  means  taken  from  the  Editio  regia  of 
Robt.  Stephens,  from  which  it  is  said  by  Mill  (Prolegg.,  §  1307)  to  depart  in 
but  twelve  passages,  by  Tischendorf  (Ed.  1841,  p.  (j'j.)  in  but  127,  but  from 
the  first  manual  edition  of  Beza,  1565,  from  which  it  departs  only  in  some 
few  passages  which  were  changed  in  accordance  with  Beza,  1580.  The  hand 
which  gave  the  text  tliis  form  is  unknown  to  us  (D.  Heinsius  or  A.  Thysius 
has  been  conjectured)  ;  the  merit  is  not  great,  and  the  best  woi-k  in  it  is  that 
of  the  proof-reader. 

Tlie  seven  (not  eight)  original  Elzevir  editions  vary  among  themselves  in 
some  passages  (so  that  only  IV.,  V.,  and  VI.  are  precisely  alike)  ;  hence  the 
numerous  reprints,  aside  from  all  other  changes,  also  vary  in  these  passages. 
Since  two  of  these  passages  were  evident  errors  (Rom.  vii.  2,  anh  tov  avSphs, 
I.-III.  ;  Rev.  iii.  12,  \ar£,  I.-VI.),  in  view  of  the  necessity  of  proof-reading 
for  a  careful  revision,  iu  this  point  alone,  the  number  of  altogether  servile 
reprints  is  to  be  placed  at  only  twenty.  Many  of  these  reprints,  even  iu 
the  wider  sense,  which  diifer  also,  perhaps,  in  size  and  other  incidental  mat- 
ters, have  misleading  titles  :  Ad  probatissimos  codices,  etc.,  or  Ex  utraque  regia 
editione,  which  is  said  to  mean  Stephens,  lood,  and  the  Antwerp  Polyglot, 
from  which  latter  they  derive  nothing  whatever,  but  which  was  mentioned 
with  the  other  on  account  of  the  Catholics. 

Yet  but  few  editions  have  been  rejirinted  from  the  Elzevii's  absolutely 
without  change  ;  most  have  in  some  passages  favorite  Stephanie  readings,  or 
at  least  have  exchanged  or  improved  the  Elzevir  variants.  According  to  the 
extent  of  such  changes  we  divide  the  whole  mass  into  two  classes. 

First  Class  :  Pure  Elzevir  editions,  i.  e.,  unchanged  reprints  of  one  of  the 
seven  genuine  Elzevirs. 

(1.)  Of  the  first  :  Wourdan,  Amst.  1626,  with  Beza's  version  ;  Jannon, 
Sedan,  1628,  the  smallest  iu  existence  ;  Paris,  in  J.  Morin's  Greek  Bible, 
1628,  fob,  in  copies  with  the  names  of  different  booksellers,  C.  Sonne,  S. 
Chappelet,  X.  Buon,  A.  Estienne  (Title-page  edition,  S.  Piget,  1641)  ;  Wechel, 
Hanau,  1629  (New  title,  Ammon,  Hamburg,  1655),  with  R.  Stephens'  pref- 
ace. 

(2.)  To  the  third  belongs,  as  to  its  text,  Whittaker,  London,  1633,  which 
was  printed  by  the  Elzevirs,  and  whose  peculiar  readings  passed  over  into 
Elzevir  III.  (Title-page  edition,  Elzevir,  1641,  8°  ;  not  to  be  coirfounded  with 
the  one  mentioned  in  Note  1.) 

(3.)  To  the  seventh  :  Cagnolini,  Padua,  1692  ;  Orphanage,  Halle,  1710, 
with  a  Modern  Greek  version  by  L.  Koletis.  A  series  of  similar  bilingual 
editions  published  by  English  Bible  Societies,  Tilling,  London  (Chelsea), 
1810  (1814),  1819  (18l;4).  Later,  see  below.  Also,  Moscow,  1821,  4° 
(Typogr.  S.  Synod.),  with  LXX. 

Second  Class  :  Editions  with  very  few  changes,  drawn  from  various  sources. 

First  Group,  the  different  editions  independent  of  one  another  ;  Jansson, 
Amst.  1632,  1639  ;  Royal  press,  Paris,  1642,  fob,  edition  de  luxe  (Maza- 
rine) ;  Laur.,  Amst.  1647,  with  Beza's  version  ;  Leers,  Rotterdam,  1654, 
1658  ;  Bodmer,  Ziirich,  1677,  and  with  Beza,  1663,  1671  ;  also  1708,  of 


ELZEVIRS.  421 

which  some  copies  without  the  version  ;  Molin,  Lyons,  1G74,  witli  the  Vul- 
gate ;  Winter,  Abo,  1G88  ;  Hugueton,  Amst.  ;  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels 
of  J.  Le  Clerc  (§  179),  1G99  (copies  with  1700),  fol.  ;  Quiiiau,  Paris,  1701  ; 
Brocas,  Paris  17i;2  ;  Seminary,  Padua,  1725  ;  Mayer,  Jena,  17^1,  witli  com- 
mentary by  C.  Stock  ;  Collin,  Stregiias,  1758  ;  Watts,  London,  lSli7  (often 
repeated  from  stereotype  plates),  with  Modern  Greek  version  ;  so  also  Til- 
ling, London,  181:8  ;  a  Harmony  of  the  Synoptists,  Malta,  18o8  ;  one  of  the 
four  Gospels  by  J.  Strong,  New  York,  1854  ;  title-page  edition,  1859  ;  N.  T. 
by  J.  Jowett,  Cambr.  1843  (1847).  (American  title-page  editions,  Cambr. 
1847,  1851)  ;  Cologne,  185G  (title-page  ed.  1831,  18GG),  neatly  and  cheaply 
reprinted  from  the  jjreceding,  the  onl}'  Elzevir  printed  in  Germany  for  al- 
most a  century,  but  at  the  expense  of  the  English  Bible  Society,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  keeping  the  more  recent  recensions  out  of  the  hands  of  students. 
Also,  with  English  versions,  18G3,  18G9,  and  with  German,  18G4. 

Second  Group  :  A  special  class  is  formed  by  the  Leusden  editions  (J.  Leus- 
den,  Prof,  at  Utrecht  ;  §  17),  in  which  1900  verses  of  the  text,  which  con- 
tain all  the  words  used  in  the  N.  T.,  are  marked  with  asterisks,  and  of  these 
those  wliich  occur  but  once  and  those  which  are  found  several  times  are 
designated  by  different  signs.  This  much  repeated  triiiiug  shows  the  taste 
of  the  age,  which  had  changed  criticism  into  Masoretic  counting,  and  be- 
lieved in  the  uuchangeableness  of  the  text.  Here  belong  :  Smytegelt, 
Utrecht,  1G75  ;  Boom,  Amst.  1G88  (also  copies  Van  Someren  ;  also  Smith, 
London)  ;  Vv'ust,  Frankf.  1G92  (copies  with  1G93),  edited  by  R.  Leusden  ; 
Lipper,  Liineburg,  1G33,  with  preface  by  J.  Winkler  and  Luther's  version  ; 
Wetstein,  Amst.  1G93,  1701,  1717,  1740  ;  also  impressions  of  all  (except 
1701)  with  Arias'  translation,  and  of  the  first  with  a  Dutch  version  ; 
Luchtmans,  Leyden,  1G99  (New  title-page,  171G,  1751,  17G5,  1785)  ;  Leip- 
zig, 1702,  1709,  1733,  with  preface  by  Rechenberg  ;  Reyher,  Gotha,  1708 
(New  title-page,  Hansch,  1710,  1712) ;  Stossel,  Chemnitz,  with  preface  by 
C.  F.  Wiliseh,  1717  ;  two  editions,  one  with  Luther's,  the  other  with  S. 
Schmidt's  Latin  version  ;  new  title-page  of  both,  1730  ;  Voss,  Leipzig,  1724, 
1730,  1739  ;  Voss,  Berlin,  1750,  1757,  1774  ;  also  with  Arias'  version,  Voss, 
Leipzig,  1722,  1727, 1737,  1745  ;  Berlin,  1753,  1757,  1761,  and  with  Luther, 
L.  1732  ;  Wetstein  and  Nourse,  Leyden  and  London,  1772  ;  Wingrave,  Lon- 
don, 1794,  1804  ;  Bradford,  Philadelphia,  1806  ;  all  these  English  and  Amer- 
ican editions  Grseco-Latin  ;  Collins,  New  York,  1824. 

Third  Group  :  Editions  which,  for  critical  purposes,  printed  the  most  cur- 
rent text  together  with  a  collection  of  variants  :  — 

(1.)  Elzevir,  and  later,  Blaeu,  Amst.  1658,  1675,  1685,  1699,  edited  by  E. 
de  Courcelles  (§  407).  Here  also,  as  to  the  text,  we  place  the  edition  Mi- 
geot,  Mons,  1673,  with  French  and  Latin  version  (Sacy  and  Vulgate),  and 
the  edition  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  with  commentary  by  B.  Carpzov,  Curt. 
Halle,  1790.  The  whole  series  may  be  recognized  by  the  brackets  (1  Jn. 
V.  7). 

(2.)  T.  Sheldon,  Oxford  (by  J.  Fell  ;  §  407)  ;  thence  Bennet,  Oxf.  1703, 
fol.,  with  Greek  scholia,  by  J.  Gregory,  and  Konig,  Leipzig,  1697,  1702,  the 
latter  with  preface  by  A.  H.  Franke.  Here  also  belong,  as  to  text  :  Smy- 
tegelt,  Utrecht,  1675  (a  different  one  from  that  already  mentioned)  ;  Heini- 
chen,  Leipzig,  1691  (also  copies  Lipper,  Liineburg)  and  1697,  with  pref- 
ace by  Adam  Rechenberg ;  Jeffray,  Cambridge,  1700  ;  Reyher,  Gotha, 
1715,  with  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha  and  a  preface  by  E.  S.  Cyprian. 

(3.)  Wetstein,  Amsterdam,  1711,  1735,  edited  by  Gerhard  v.  Maestricht 
(§  407)  ;  reprinted,  Renger,  Halle,  1730,  with  notes  by  C.  Neudecker  ;  and 
without  the  variants.  Orphanage,  Halle,  1740,  1756,  1762,  1775  (  the  books 
in  Luther's  order,  also  copies  with  Luther's  version) ;  Mechel,  Basle,  by  A. 
Birr,  1749  ;  Thurneisf^n,  Basle,  1825  ;  Foidis,  Glasgow,  1759,  4°;  Ruddiiiian, 
Edinb.  1750, 1771  ;  University  Press,  Edinb.  1807  ;  Wilson  &  Cadell,  London, 
1808  (stereotype  editions,  1812,  1821, 1829,  1840),  edited  by  W.  W.  Dakins. 


422  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

A  glance  at  the  foregoing  list  of  genuine  Elzevir  editions,  scarcely  twenty 
of  which,  not  even  all  the  Leusdens,  are  without  variations  from  their  orig- 
inal, shows,  in  the  first  place,  that  their  number  is  not  so  overwhelming  as 
is  generally  supposed  ;  secondly,  that  the  appellation  Textus  Receptus  be- 
longs to  them  neither  in  the  sense  of  absolute  uuchangeableness  nor  in  that 
of  especial  independence  ;  finally  also,  that  tliis  text  made  its  way  into 
Lutheran  circles  much  later  than  into  the  Reformed,  and  under  the  patron- 
age of  the  Halle  school  (the  Pietists,  §  558).  Yet  the  difference  between 
the  previously  prevalent  btephanic  and  Stephano-Bezan  text  and  the  Elzevir 
is  far  too  slight  to  lay  weight  upon.  No  notice  was  taken  of  the  variants 
except  in  so  far  as  the  better  known  editions  were  distinguished  thereby. 
Hence  it  was  possible  to  assert  that  there  were  really  no  various  readings,  or 
only  clerical  errors,  that  no  one  should  trouble  himself  about  them,  or  that 
they  served  only  as  occasions  for  dangerous  contention  ;  see  the  prefaces  of 
A.  Birr,  1749,  and  of  the  edition  of  Stregniis,  1758.  For  the  way  in  which 
theological  science  settled  the  matter,  see  Moldenhawer,  Introd.,  p.  197  : 
Dantur  quidem  vv.  II.  cum  autem  potissimum  ex  incuria  scriharum  ortum  trahant, 
nulli  ardculo  Jidei  fraudi  sint,  analogiam  fidei  non  turheni,  et  vera  lectio  ope 
regularum  herm.  et  crit.  dignosci  queat,  minime  textum  corruptionis  arguunt  et 
permisit  eas  deos  ne  deesset  hominibus  occasio  assidue  scrutandi  II.  ss.  So  also 
Bdrner,  Isagoge,  p.  59.  But  the  orthodox  theory  of  criticism  is  expressed  in 
the  following  (Leusden,  Philol  hehr.  gr.,  p.  47)  :  Plerceque  vv.  II.  ex  oscitantia 
scribarum  irrepserunt,  quce  studio  Complutensium,  Erasmi,  Stephani,  Bezce  sunt 
restitutce  adeo  ut  (as  if  these  agreed  !  )  in  hodiernis  edd.  quiescere  possimus.  .  .  . 
Non  cuilibet  concedenda  est  facultas  eligendi  lectionem,  nam  tumsensus  eliceretur 
qualem  aliquis  judicat  eligendum  cum  solius  Sp.  S.  sit  determinare  quid  ad  S.  S. 
pertinent.  And  it  is  adduced  as  an  example  that  1  Ju.  v.  7  ought  not  to  be 
struck  out,  because  a  dictum  probans  would  be  lost. 

R.  Simon  (Hist,  du  V.  T.,  p.  8)  ;  Les  catholiques,  qui  sont  persuades  que 
leur  religion  ne  depend  pas  seulement  du  texte  de  V Ecriture,  mais  aussi  de  la 
tradition  de  V^glise,  ne  sont  point  scandalises  de  voir  que  le  malheur  des  temps 
et  la  negligence  des  copistes  ayent  apporte  des  changements  aux  livres  sacrcs. 
II  n'y  a  que  des  protestants  pre'occupe's  ou  ignorants  qui  puissent  s'en  scanda- 
liser.  Hence  the  storm  of  opposition  to  L.  Cappelle's  Critica  s.  V.  T.,  which 
could  only  be  printed  under  Catholic  management  (1G50). 

The  wishes  of  Polyc.  Leyser  (De  nooiter  adornanda  N.  T.  edit.,  L.  1723), 
whose  voice  was  the  only  one  beard  upon  critical  matters  at  that  time  among 
the  Lutherans,  refer  to  externalities  only,  and  show  no  suspicion  of  the  true 
state  of  the  case. 

Third  Class.  Improperly  so-called  reprints  of  the  Elzevir  text,  with  more 
frequent  changes  (according  to  Stephens). 

First  Group  :  On  the  basis  of  the  first  Elzevir  edition,  with  some  non- 
Stephanie  readings  also  :  Buck,  Cambr.  1632  ;  repeated,  Roger  Daniel,  Lond. 
1G52,  1653  ;  Field,  Cambr.  1665  ;  Redmaine,  Lond.  1674,  1705  ;  Churchill, 
London,  1701  (two  editions)  ;  Knaplock,  Lond.  1728  ;  Tonson  and  Watts, 
Lond.  1714,  1728,  1730,  1756,  edited  by  M.  Maittaire  ;  Rivington,  Lond. 
1775,  1786  ;  Ewing,  Dublin,  1746,  1775  ;  Ekshaw,  Dublin,  1794  ;  Pickering, 
Lond.  1828,  of  the  smallest  conceivable  size,  with  Lilliputian  type. 

Second  Group  :  An  edition  with  Modern  Greek  version  by  Maximus  of 
Kallipoli,  sine  loco  (Geneva  ?),  1638,  2  vols.  4°,  ordered  by  the  Patriarch 
Cyril  Lucar,  in  which  the  text  of  Elzevir  II.  is  altered  by  the  aid  of  R. 
Stephens,  1546,  and  H.  Stephens,  1587. 

Third  Group  :  In  the  three  complete  editions  of  the  works  of  Cocceius 
(§  557),  Amst.  1675,  Frankf.  1689,  Amst.  1701,  there  is  printed  an  almost 
complete  N.  T.,  in  which  Elzevir  IV.  is  abandoned  in  many  passages,  at  least 
in  the  Epistles. 

Fourth  Group  :  Tlie  second  edition  of  Bdcler,  Sfadel,  Str.  1660,  abandon.; 
Stephens  (§  403)  for  Elzevir  but  seldom. 


ELZEVIRS.  423 

Fifth  Group  :  Gleditsch,  Leipzig,  witli  preface  by  J.  G.  Pritz,  tables  of 
contents  and  variants,  1703,  1709,  1724,  1735  ;  reprint  of  the  first,  Vnlpius, 
Giessen,  edited  by  J.  H.  Mai,  1705  ;  also  copies  with  Luther  ;  of  the  fourth, 
March,  Leipzig,  1744,  with  a  peculiar  section  division  and  tables  of  con- 
tents by  C.  Schottgen  ;  repeated,  Gampert,  Breslan,  17(J5  ;  Korn,  Breslau, 
1782,  1795.  Less  like  the  foregoing,  Teubner,  Wittenb.  1730,  edited  by  C. 
S.  Georgi,  with  but  few  variants  ne  imperiiiores  turbentur ;  repeated,  1737, 
with  Arias'  version  ;  Normal  School,  Prague,  ed.  C.  Fischer,  Xlll;  Upsala, 
1806-1817,  2  vols.     Characteristic  of  most,  2  Cor.  xi.  10,  <T(ppayr,aiTai. 

Sixth  Group  :  Lankisch,  Leipzig,  1713,  N.  T.  quadrilingue  (Peshito,  Vul- 
gate, Luther),  ed.  C.  Reineccius  (new  title-page,  1747),  fol.  ;  thence  a  series 
of  manual  editions  which  agree  line  for  line  :  Breitkopf,  Leipz.  1725,  1733, 
1742,  1753,  176G,  1783  ;  reprinted.  Orphanage,  ZUliichau,  1740,  4°  (also 
copies  with  Luther) ;  Helwing,  Detmold,  1787.  (Title-page  edition,  Ba- 
deckcr,  Duisburg,  1804.)     Characteristic,  Rom.  xii.  11,  Kvpiw  {KaipQ). 

Seventh  Group  :  The  text  of  Mill  (§  407),  on  account  of  the  fame  of  the 
original  edition,  has  been  very  often  repeated  with  slight  changes  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  and  is  even  now  more  widely  current  there  than  the  El- 
zevir :  Editions  by  W.  Bowyer,  printer  in  London  (later  Nichols),  1715, 
1728,  1743,  1760,  1770,  1777,  1787,  1816  (cf.  §§  398,  408  ;  Lork,  I.  c,  II. 
69);  also  Baskerville,  Oxford,  1763,  4°  and  8°;  Jos.  Priestley's  Harmony  of 
the  Gospels,  London,  1777,  4°;  Clarendon  Press,  London,  1805  (a  complete 
Greek  Bible),  1808,  1813,  1819,  1828,  1830,  1836,  1844,  and  perhaps  freq. 
—  Thomas,  Worcester  (Mass.),  1800;  Reeves,  Lond.  1803;  Bagster,  Lon- 
don, 1813,  1825, 1829  (and  freq.,  stereotyped),  in  8°,  12°,  32°;  also  sine  anno 
and  with  English  version  ;  Thomas,  Boston,  1814  ;  Booth,  London,  1825, 
with  commentary,  3  vols.  —  Parker,  London,  1855,  with  notes  by  Webster 
and  Wilkinson.  —  Parker,  Oxford,  with  scholia  by  E.  Burton,  1831,  1835, 
1848, 1852,  1856;  Univ.  Press,  Oxf.,  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  by  E.  Greswell, 
1834,  and  freq.  ;  Univ.  Press,  Oxf.,  with  English  version  and  critical  appar- 
atus by  E.  Cardwell,  1837,  2  vols.  ;  Rickerby,  Lond.,  with  scholia  by  W. 
TroUope,  1837;  Pickering,  London,  with  scholia,  LXX.,  Josephus,  and  Philo, 
by  E.  W.  Griniield  (editio  Jiellenistica),  1843,  4  vols.  ;  Bagster,  Lond.  1829, 
with  variants  and  grammatical  notes  by  W.  Greenfield  ;  also  Perkins,  Pliila. 
1841,  and  freq.  (stereotyped);  also  sine  anno  ;  N.  Y.  1847  (1859),  with  notes 
bv  J.  A.  Spencer.  —  The  Am.  Bible  Union  published  with  Mill's  text,  N.  Y. 
1854,  4°,  a  portion  of  the  N.  T.  (Catholic  Epistles  and  Apocalypse)  as  a 
specimen  of  a  new  English  translation.  Whether  more  since  is  unknown  to 
me.     [N.  Y.  1860  ;  the  new  version  in  full,  N.  Y.  1866.] 

Eighth  Group  :  Ruddiman,  Edinb.  1740  ;  Urie,  Glasgow,  1750 ;  Brough- 
ton,  Oxf.  1742  ;  Richardson,  Lond.,  with  notes  by  S.  Hardy,  1768, 1778, 1820 
(also  copies  without  the  notes,  Allman,  London,  1820) . 

Ninth  Group  :  Royal  Press,  Turin,  1741 ;  Typoqr.  Semin.,  Padua,  1745, 
1755,  1762  (twice),  1774,  1789,  1796,  1820  ;  Bortoli,  Venice,  1751.  All 
shabby  and  defective  ;  change  the  Elzevir  text  frequently  according  to  R. 
Stephens,  1546. 

Tenth  Group  :  Wallis,  N.  Y.  1808,  ed.  P.  Wilson  (repeated  from  stereo- 
type plates,  Hartford,  1822,  1825,  1829  ;  Phila.  1829,  1833,  1838,  1858,  and 
probably  freq.).  In  this  edition,  on  the  contrary,  the  oldest  Stephens  text 
is  in  many  passages  altered  according  to  Elzevir. 

Fourth  Class  :  The  Elzevir  text  frequently  changed  according  to  the  Plan- 
tine  editions  :  — 

First  Group  :  Cramoisy,  Paris,  1632,  fol.,  with  commentary  by  J.  Gordon. 

Second  Group  :  Longman,  London,  1794,  1801,  1809. 

407.  Meanwhile  the  industry  of  the  more  unprejudiced 
scholars  was  applied  the  more  zealously  to  the  increase  and 


424  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED  TEXT. 

sifting  of  the  critical  apparatus.  It  was  no  disadvantao^e  what- 
ever tliat  the  prevailing  prejudices  hindered  the  more  frequent 
transformations  of  the  text,  for  they  were  yet  always  too 
hasty  ;  it  was  thus  possible  to  collect  and  store  up,  with  more 
time  and  care,  the  treasures  with  which  a  freer  century,  in 
fresh  power,  might  begin  a  more  enduring  work.  The  splendid 
and  richly  gotteii-up  Polyglots  of  Paris  and  London  brought 
up  again  from  their  graves,  as  it  were,  the  witnesses  of  the  first 
centuries.  The  example  invited  imitation,  and  with  the  con- 
sciousness that  they  wei-e  working  for  the  future,  others  car- 
ried on  indefatigably  the  work  begun,  and  soon  pressed  on 
from  the  business  of  collection  to  the  threshold  of  theory. 
With  the  last  of  these  works  science  departed  from  Great 
Britain  through  Holland  to  Germany,  which  has  ever  since 
been  its  home,  and  where  for  the  first  time  it  succeeded  in 
bringing  forth  ripe  fruit. 

Biblia  hebraica  samaritana  chaldaica  grceca  syriaca  latina  arahica,  And. 
Vitre,  Paris,  1G45,  10  vols.  fol.  max.  Under  the  direction  and  mostly  at  the 
expense  of  Guy  Michel  Le  Jay.  The  first  volumes  were  published  in  laid. 
The  N.  T.  (Parts  V.  and  VI.),  1G30  and  1G33.  Cf.  Le  Long,  Diss,  de  bibl. 
polygl.,  printed  in  Masch,  p.  350  ;  liosenmiiller,  Lit.,  III.  314.  On  the  text 
printed,  see  §  403. 

Biblia  s.  polyglntta,  etc.,  ed.  Brian  Walton  (f  IGGl).  Cf.  Stdudlin,  in  the 
Kirclienhist.  Archiv,  I.  2.  [H.  J.  Todd,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of 
Brian  Walton,  together  ivilh  the  Bishop's  Vindication  of  the  London  Polyglott 
Bible,  Lond.  1821,  2  vols.]  T.  Roycroft,  Lond.  1G57,  G  vols.  fol.  The  N.  T. 
(New  title-page,  1G98)  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Ethiopic.  The  Gos- 
pels also  Persian.  The  more  famous  contributors,  p]dm.  Castle  (Ciistellus), 
Edw.  Pococke,  Sam.  Clarke  (Clericus),  Th.  Hyde,  Dudley  Loftus,  and 
others,  gave  their  attention  not  so  much  to  the  original  Greek  text  as  to  the 
oriental  versions.  The  above  mentioned  (§  17)  apparatus  is  in  the  first  vol- 
ume ;  Edm.  Castle's  Lexicon  heptaglotton  forms  a  seventh  and  eighth.  The 
N.  T.  forms  the  fifth  volume.  The  sixth  contains,  beside  many  critical  col- 
lections on  the  versions,  those  on  the  Greek  text  also.  The  text  is  simply 
reprinted  from  the  third  Stephens  edition  of  1550,  from  which  I  have  found 
only  a  few  variations,  of  Plantine  origin.  Cf.  in  general  E.  Reuss,  Art. 
Polyglottenbibeln,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 

E.  de  Courcelles,  N.  T.  editio  nova  in  qua  diligentius  quam  unquam  antea 
var.  lectt.  ex  MSS.  et  impr.  codd.  collectce  sunt,  Amst.  1G58,  12°  (§  40G).  Con- 
demned as  heretical  on  account  of  the  variants  (1  Jn.  v.  7  is  bracketed),  see 
Masch,  p.  230  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  II.  32  ;  Handh.,  IV.  198  ;  J.  G.  Mol- 
ler,  Stephan.  Curcell.  in  ed.  N.  T.  socinizans,  Rost.  1G96.  The  text  in  all 
four  editions  is  precisely  alike,  and  is  reprinted  from  Elzevir  II.  The  pref- 
ace gives  an  account  of  the  earlier  editions  and  declares  very  intelligently 
that,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  not  yet  time  to  judge  of  readings  but  to  collect 
and  preserve  them  ;  and  that  the  suppression  of  them  is  the  real  source  of 
the  increasing  corruption. 

J.  Fell,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  N.T.  .  .  .  acced.  var.  lectt.  ex  plus  centan  MSS. 
codd.  et  antiquis  verss.  collectce,  Sheldon,  Oxf.  1G75,  8°  (without  the  name  of 
the  editor).  For  the  first  time  the  Gothic  and  Coptic  versions  are  also  nsed. 
The  text  is  likewise  taken,  essentially,  from  Elzevir  II.  (§  403).  Fell's 
preface  is  interesting  for  the  history  of  criticism.  Cf.  Baumgarten,  I.  c, 
200. 


PARIS   AND  LONDON  POLYGLOTS —WETSTEIN.  426 

J.  Mill,  Fell's  pupil  and  spiritual  heir  :  JV.  T.  gr.  cum  lectt.  var.  MSS. 
verss.  edd.  Patrum  et  in  easdem  notis  .  .  .  praru'dtitur  dlssertatio  qua  de  II.  N.  T. 
et  canonis  cunstitutione  (§  23)  agitur  et  historia  textus  ad  nostra  usque  tempora 
deducltur,  Sheldon,  Oxf.  1707,  fol.  The  fruit  of  the  labors  of  thirty  years, 
and  throwing  all  previous  works  into  the  shade.  He  used,  beside  many  new 
MSS.,  in  particular  the  oriental  versions,  but  unfortunately  only  in  the  Latin 
translations  of  the  Polyglots.  (Against  him,  C.  A.  Bode,  Pseudo-critica 
Mdlio-Bengeliana,  Helmst.  17G7.)  The  Prolegomena  separately,  with  notes 
by  D.  Salthen,  Reg.  1734.  —  Against  Mill  :  1).  Whitby,  Examen.  var.  lectt. 
J.  Millii,  London,  1710,  fol.,  Leyden,  1733,  8°.  See  also  Clarke,  Ep.  de  ed. 
Milliana  (in  Kiister's  ed.  see  below),  and  in  general  Baumgarten,  Nachr., 
IV.  204  ;   Unschuld.  Nachr.,  1710,  p.  21 ;  Lork,  BibelgescUchte,  I.  429. 

New  revised  edition  :  Collectionem  Mill.  rec.  meliori  ordine  disposuit  et  lo~ 
cupletavit  L.  Kiister,  C.  Fritsch,  Amst.  1710,  fol.  (also  copies  Rotterdam, 
1710  ;  Gleditsch,  Leipzig,  1723,  1746.  The  same  (Dutch)  print  throughout, 
and  Gleditsch  is  the  publisher  from  the  first.) 

The  text  printed  is  the  Stephens  of  1550,  from  which  neither  editor  de- 
parts except  in  very  few  passages,  and  these  not  always  the  same.  Mill's 
edition  is  the  last  important  critical  work  which  has  grown  up  on  English 
soil,  inasmuch  as  the  later  ones  have  been  forgotten  ;  it  has  maintained  itself 
in  high  consideration  there  even  down  to  the  present  time,  so  that  through 
its  fame  the  old  Stephens  text  also  has  obtained  a  large  measure  of  immor- 
tality.    Cf.  §  406.     Only  very  recently  has  science  again  revived  there. 

Gerhard  v.  Msestricht  (De  Trajecto  Mosce),  Syndic  at  Bremen,  laid  down 
in  a  Specimen  nov(e  ed.,  1706,  thirty-seven  canons  (afterward  forty-three)  for 
the  estimation  of  variants,  the  first  attempt  at  a  theory  of  N.  T.  criticism. 
His  editions  (§  406)  have,  beside  the  apparatus,  the  prefaces  of  Courcelles 
and  Fell,  his  own  Prolegomena,  and  critical  notes  at  the  close.  On  the  title- 
page  he  signs  himself  with  his  initials  only,  G.  D.  T.  M.  Cf.  Pfaff,  §  396  ; 
Bengel,  §  410  ;  Baumgarten,  I.  c,  IV.  206. 

408.  Among  the  Germans  who  followed  in  the  footsteps  of 
these  Britons  we  mention  first  John  Jacob  Wetstein,  a  preach- 
er's son,  of  Basle.  As  to  time,  it  is  true,  he  had  still  other 
predecessors,  but  his  work  belongs  in  the  line  of  those  just 
mentioned.  He  had  been  obliged  to  leave  his  native  land  on 
account  of  suspicions  of  heresy,  and  had  found  a  reception 
among  the  more  liberal-minded  Arminians  at  Amsterdam, 
after  that,  on  journeys  and  in  other  ways,  he  had  by  unremit- 
ting diligence  possessed  himself  of  a  vast  amount  of  material. 
He  would  gladly  have  gone  farther  and  made  use  of  the  results 
obtained  by  criticism  for  an  actual  and  thorough  revision  of 
the  text  ;  but  his  bad  reputation  had  followed  him,  and  he  too 
was  obliged  to  sacrifice  his  convictions  to  the  spirit  of  the  age, 
and  to  content  himself  with  designating  the  readings  preferred 
as  approved,  because  otherwise  he  would  have  found  no  press 
for  his  edition.  But  the  review  of  these  shows  that  his  choice 
was  both  discreet  and  happy. 

N.  T.  gr.  editionis  receptee  cum  lectt.  var.  codd.  MSS.  edd.  verss.  et  patrum 
nee  non  commentario  pleniore  ex  scriptoribus  hehr.  gr.  et  lat  .  .  .  .  op.  et  stud. 
J.  J.  W.,  Dommer,  Amst.  1751  f.,  2  vols.,  fol. 

On  his  person  and  life  (*  1693,  f  1754),  see  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1738,  p.  71  ; 
C.  R.  Hagenbaeh,  Wetstein  der  Kritiker  und  seine  Gegner,  in  Illgen's  Zeilschr. 


426  HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT. 

1839,  p.  73  ;  Btittger,  ibid.,  1870,  IV.  —  Acta  oder  Handlungen  betreffend 
Irrthiimer  und  anstussige  Lehren  J.  J.  W.,  Basle,  1730  ;  Ordinis  theologorum 
basil,  dedaratio  de  N.  T.  Wetsteniano,  llol  (in  the  Bihliolh.  Hugaiia,  111.  1); 
J.  C.  Valk,  Observationes  ad  hanc  declarationem,  1757  (Biblioth.  Hag.,  III. 
649)  ;  J.  A.  Eruesti,  Specimen  castigationum  in  Wetst.  N.  T.,  L.  1754.  — 
Kraft,  Bibl,  VIII.  99  ;  X.  99  ;  Baunigarten,  Nachr.,  II.  48  ;  IV.  114. 

The  Prolegomena  were  printed  anonymously  at  Amsterdam,  1730,  4°,  then 
enlarged  and  put  before  the  separate  portions  of  the  large  edition,  and  in 
the  appendix  as  Animadvv.  et  cautiones  ad  examen  var.  lectt.  neces^aricB. 
The  former  edited  separately,  with  notes  and  additions,  by  Semler,  Halle, 
17G4.  The  latter,  with  other  essays  of  the  same  author,  under  the  title 
Wetstenii  libelli  ad  crisin  et  interpr.  N.  T.,  17G6.  The  new  edition  of  the 
whole  work  announced  by  A.  Lotze,  Rotterdam,  1831,  4°,  brought  only  the 
Prolegomena. 

The  text  printed  is  the  Elzevir  of  1624,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
Stephanie  readings.  Immediately  under  it  (or,  where  a  gloss  was  to  be 
struck  out,  within  it,  by  means  of  a  dash)  stand  the  variants  which  Wetstein 
unconditionally  preferred.  Doubtless  it  was  something  unheard  of  at  that 
time,  when  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Lk.  xi.  was  curtailed,  a  whole  pericope 
stricken  out  in  Jn.  viii.,  Qiov  set  aside  in  Acts  xx.  28,  h  read  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16, 
1  Jn.  V.  7  expunged,  and  the  closing  doxology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
attached  to  the  fourteenth  chapter  ;  not  to  speak  of  many  glosses  struck 
out,  or  of  readings  which  had  nowhere  appeared  since  the  Complutensian. 

Wetstein  won  especial  merit  b}''  a  more  accurate  description  of  MSS. 
(§  392),  many  of  them  but  newly  collated.  He  was  also  the  tirst  to  investi- 
gate the  Philoxenian  version.  Yet  he  did  not  attain  to  a  clear  view  of  the 
history  of  the  text,  and  so  of  the  principles  of  criticism.  He  had  an  inordi- 
nate prejudice  against  the  Latin  version  and  everything  connected  with  it, 
and  could  not  adopt  the  system  of  families  put  forward  by  Beugel  while  he 
was  at  work. 

On  the  commentary,  rich,  but  certainly  not  collected  in  an  orthodox  spirit, 
see  §  563. 

Here  may  be  placed  some  of  the  editions  prepared  by  the  I^ondon  printer 
W.  Bowyer  (not  to  be  confounded  with  those  mentioned  in  §  40G),  wliich 
profess  to  give  the  text  according  to  Wetstein's  marginal  readings  :  Lond. 
1763,  12°;  1783,  4°;  1812.  This  system,  however,  is  not  carried  through 
completely  ;  in  particular,  Bowyer  often  contents  himself  with  brackets 
where  Wetstein  strikes  out. 

409.  All  these  preliminary  labors  made  the  task  of  criticism 
lighter  and  more  attractive,  and  it  could  not  fail  that  some 
should  at  last  conceive  in  earnest  the  thought  of  giving  life 
and  motion  to  the  dead  material,  and  of  carrying  through,  by 
the  aid  of  the  variants  collected,  a  new  recension  of  the  text. 
Here  again  it  was  the  English  who  led  the  way,  to  the  horror 
of  all  who  clung  to  custom,  but  unfortunately  too  soon  and 
ungraciously  forgotten  by  those  who  came  after  them.  Sev- 
eral even  then  hit  upon  the  idea  of  interrogating  the  oldest 
witnesses  alone,  paying  no  attention  to  others.  Some,  how- 
ever, continued  their  researches  and  the  announcement  of  their 
results,  and  found,  instead  of  sober  judgment  and  due  acknowl- 
edgment, only  clamor  and  suspicion. 

1.  Cramoisy,  Paris,  1707,  fol.  (Copies  Martin,  Paris,  1709)  ;  a  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels  by  N.  Toinard,  thoroughly  revised  according  to  MSS.,  but 
chiefly  according  to  the  Vulgate. 


BENTLEY  -  BENGEL.  427 

2.  E.  Wells  published,  at  Oxf.  1709-19,  iu  10  parts,  4°,  a  text  actually 
revised  according  to  MSS.,  slightly  iu  the  Gospels,  much  iu  the  Epistles  aud 
Apocalypse,  with  English  version  and  paraphrase,  which,  however,  was  little 
noticed. 

3.  Richard  Bentley,  the  renowned  critic  of  classical  literature,  promised 
a  new  recension  of  the  Greek  text  and  the  Vulgate,  and  published  a  specimen 
in  17'20.  See  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1721,  p.  612  ;  Pritz,  Introd.,  ed.  Hofniann, 
p.  414  ff.;  Wetstein,  Pro/e(7y.,  p.  392  ;  Eichhorn,  Einl,  V.  303;  Tischendorf, 
Prolegg.,  Ed.  VII.,  p.  87  [VIII.].  Controversial  writings  by  Conyers  Mid- 
dleton,  1721  ff.  Cod.  Alex,  and  the  revised  Vulgate  were  to  be  the  foundation. 
The  22d  chapter  of  the  Revelation  of  John,  printed  as  a  specimen,  departs 
from  the  Elzevir  text  in  more  than  forty  places,  which  are  almost  without 
exception  so  read  by  modern  criticism.  When  Bentley,  perhaps  weary  of  the 
controversy  going  on,  gave  up  the  enterprise,  gossip  affirmed  that  he  felt  that 
he  was  not  equal  to  it. 

4.  N.  T.,  Greek  and  English,  Roberts,  Lond.  1729,  without  accents,  very 
handsomely  printed,  with  some  critical  and  theological  notes.  The  unknown 
editor  was  named  Mace  (others,  Macey).  Tlie  judgment  of  contemporaries, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  real  state  of  the  case,  is  very  characteristic  : 
Pritz,  Introd.,  p.  422  :  Novce  in  divinam  religionem  machinationes  .  .  .  temerario 
ausu  in  ss.  II.  grassatur  pro  lubitu  delens,  mutans,  etc.;  Baumgarten,  Handb.,  IV. 
208  :  Gehort  zu  den  allerverwegensten  Untemehmungen  loelche  von  den  Wider- 
sachem  der  Goitheit  Christi  und  der  Dreieinigkeit  je  versucht  icorden  .  .  .  geht  in 
eigemndchtigen  und  willkilrlichen  Verdnderungen  des  Textes  weiter  als  je  ein 
Herausgeber ;  Masch,  p.  328  :  Textus  ita  mutatus  est  ut  Arianorum  hypothesi 
succurrat  lectio.  Excursuses  give  contributions  to  the  higher  criticism  of  the 
Antilegomena  (at  that  time  unheard  of).  The  text  is  changed  in  numerous 
passages,  in  which  it  frequently  agrees  with  the  Complutensian,  more  often 
still  introduces  wholly  new  readings,  and  not  seldom  brackets  supposed 
glosses.  It  m  also  said  in  connection  with  Gal.  iv.  25,  "  There  is  no  manu- 
script so  old  as  common  sense."  In  the  large  majority  of  cases  modern 
criticism  agrees  with  him. 

More  boldly  yet,  and  proceeding  on  the  basis  of  very  peculiar  notions,  W. 
Whiston  {Primitive  N.  T.,  1745)  proposed  to  restore  the  text  of  the  historical 
books  from  Cod.  Cantab.,  that  of  Paul  from  Cod.  Clarom.,  the  rest  from 
Cod.  Alex.  The  design  was  never  carried  out.  Against  him  S.  J.  Baum- 
garten (resp.  ^e\\\\ev),Vindicice  textus  N.  T.  adv.  W.  Wh.,  Hal.  1750. 

5.  This  idea  was  realized  in  the  main  in  the  edition  of  E.  Harwood,  Lond. 
1776,  which  is  to  be  regarded  not  so  much  as  a  new  recension  as  a  printed 
edition  of  some  exclusively  preferred  MSS.  Hence  it  gives  almost  line  for 
line  a  text  never  before  seen.  From  its  results  as  well  as  from  its  sources 
the  work  coidd  have  little  inflvience,  and  the  simultaneous  appearance  of 
Griesbach's  pressed  it  altogether  into  the  background.  Harwood  often 
agrees  with  Lachmann,  who  proceeded  upon  similar  but  more  rational  princi- 
ples. 

410.  Less  boldly  but  with  greater  effect,  the  Swabian  theolo- 
gian, Johann  Albrecht  Bengel,  took  up  the  task  of  tlie  revision 
of  the  text.  He  was  the  first  among  the  Lutherans  to  venture 
in  earnest  upon  the  undertaking  of  giving  the  text  a  new  form 
upon  fixed  principles,  at  the  same  time  opening  the  way  for 
further  progress  in  the  future.  Although  led  to  become  a 
critic  from  dogmatic  anxiety,  he  approached  with  prudence  and 
unembarrassed  by  the  power  of  custom  a  task  which  in  his 
sphere  was  altogether  new  and  looked  upon  with  suspicion. 


428  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

Science  owes  to  liim  the  fruitful  idea  of  classifying  the  wit- 
nesses according  to  families,  and  the  convenient  method  of 
arranging  readings  comprehensively  according  to  their  probable 
value.  Both  were  opposed  by  the  learned,  and  the  results  of 
them  yet  more  violently  by  the  ignorant,  and  bis  work  appears 
to  have  had  little  influence  outside  the  limits  of  his  native 
country.  The  age  still  distrusted  these  things,  and  pietism  and 
orthodoxy,  otherwise  so  hostile,  guarded  w^ith  equal  jealousy 
the  letter  of  their  New  Testament  Masora. 

On  Bengel  and  his  N.  T.  see  §  561  ;  Burk,  Lelen  Bengels  [Stuttg.  1831], 
p.  197  tt'.  ;  Friiliaufgelesene  FrUchte,  1738,  p.  159  ;  Baunigarten,  Nachr.,  11. 
42,  475  ;  Hartmann,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.  [abridged  in  Scliaif' s  Rel.  Encycl.']. 
[Also  Oskar  Wiichter,  BengeVs  Lebensabriss,  18(35.] 

N.  T.  ita  adornatum  ut  textus  probatarum  edd.  medullam,  margo  var.  lectt.  in 
suas  classes  distributarum  delectum,  apparatus  subjunctus  criseos  s.  compendium 
limam  et  fructum  exhibeat,  Cotta,  Tiib.  1734,  4°.  To  it  belong  (1)  Prodromus 
N.  T.  gr.  recte  cauteque  adornandi,  1725  ;  (2)  Notitia  N.  T.  recte  cauteque 
adornati,  1731;  (3)  Tractatus  de  sinceritate  N.  T.  tuenda,  1750;  (4)  Examen 
canonum  Gerh.  de  Mastr.,  1742  ;  (5)  several  Defensiones,  —  all,  together  with 
still  other  matter,  printed  with  the  whole  apparatus,  Ed.  II.,  ed.  P.  D.  Burck, 
1763,  4°. 

He  received  no  reading  into  the  text  which  had  not  already  occurred  in 
some  edition,  except  in  the  Apoealyjise,  which  he  permitted  himself  to  alter 
according  to  MSS.  Most  of  his  changes  are  discreet  and  have  been  ap- 
proved by  modern  critics.  The  apparatus  discusses  only  the  more  important 
variants  ;  the  margin  of  the  text  gives  a  selection  of  tliese,  divided  according 
to  their  value  into  five  classes.  The  Latin  vci'sions,  the  Cod.  Alex.,  and  the 
difficulty  of  the  reading  were  decisive  with  him.  The  first  class  (a)  included 
those  readings  preferred  to  the  received  text,  the  second  03)  those  probably 
better  ;  the  other  classes  (7,  S,  e)  he  placed  after  the  printed  text. 

Opponents  of  Bengel  :  Wetstein,  Prolegg.,  ed.  Sender,  p.  398  ;  C.  B. 
Michaelis,  see  §  396  ;  Semler,  Ad  Wetstenii  lib.  crit.,  p.  167;  Bode,  see  §  407; 
beside  a  great  crowd  of  b.abblers. 

Manual  editions,  with  the  critical  notes  in  the  margin,  but  without  the 
apparatus  :  Faber,  Stuttg.  1734  (1738)  ;  Berger,  Tiib.  1753,  1762,  1776  ; 
Heerbrandt,  Tiib.  1790.  —  The  first  gives  the  criticism  of  the  larger  edition 
unchanged.  That  of  1753,  on  the  contrary,  of  which  the  last  three  are  mere 
reprints,  often  changes  the  estimate  of  the  readings  given  in  the  marginal 
notes.  A  reprint  of  the  first  recension  by  A.  BUttig,  Weidmann,  L.  1737.  — 
It  is,  moreover,  to  be  observed  that  Bengel  in  his  Gnomon  (^§  561)  often  pre- 
fers different  readings  than  in  the  editions.  Hence  his  son,  Ernst  Bengel, 
added  in  that  of  1776  and  afterward  a  Tabula  quce  criseos  Bengeliance  diversas 
periodos  exhibet,  in  which  all  changes  are  noticed. 

To  the  Bengelian  recension  belongs  also  an  altogether  peculiar  edition  by 
E.  Stephan,  Stein,  Str.  1779,  in  which  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  are  arranged  in 
chronological  order  ;  the  text  of  the  Gospels  is  printed  in  the  form  of  a 
harmony,  the  parallel  passages  being  completely  mixed,  and  extracts  from 
the  Epistles  and  from  isagogics  are  interpolated  in  the  Acts.  So  far  as  col- 
lation is  still  possible,  the  readings  a  and  ^  of  the  later  Bengelian  recension 
are  almost  without  exception  received  into  the  text,  though  very  often  only 
in  brackets  by  the  side  of  the  older  readings,  or,  where  the  question  was  of 
omission,  only  indicated  by  brackets  ;  but  some  passages  are  independently 
changed. 

Bengel's  text  is  also  printed  in  the  N.  T.  of  Koppe  (§  580),  in  all  its  paris 


BENGEL.  429 

and  editions  (1778-1828),  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Epistles  of  James 
and  to  the  Corinthians,  by  Pott,  who  in  the  later  editions  has  followed  Gries- 
bach. 

411.  Yet  the  great  revolution  of  thought  in  the  hist  half  of 
the  last  century  could  not  be  without  influence  in  the  reahn  of 
this  science  also.  Criticism  was  not  only  permitted,  but  obliged, 
to  come  forward  more  freely  with  the  undeniable  results  of 
the  material  that  had  been  amassed.  At  length  there  appealed 
new  recensions  of  the  text,  which  aimed  to  sliape  it  in  accord- 
ance with  higher  critical  theories,  and  which  did  not  allow 
themselves  to  be  restricted  by  the  baseless  right  of  the  current 
readings.  Here  and  there,  however,  method  or  inclination  led 
to  a  moderate  revision  only.  At  the  same  time  scholars  went 
on  increasing  the  knowledge  of  particular  manuscripts,  and  en- 
riching and  arranging  the  collection  of  readings.  Their  labors 
tended  directly  to  the  advantage  of  those  who  were  undertaking 
the  more  comprehensive  work,  and  needed  ready  helps  for  it. 
From  the  time  when  the  prejudice  of  the  unimprovableness  of 
the  text  was  finally  compelled  to  give  way,  and  the  usefulness 
and  profit  of  such  investigations  was  assured,  tlie  business  of 
collection  was  taken  up  with  a  restless  energy  which  often 
seemed  to  overestimate  the  importance  of  the  subject. 

J.  S.  Semler  was  here  also  the  first  to  open  the  way  for  the  new  ideas  and 
systems  which  had  been  quietly  maturing  :  see  his  writings  cited  in  §  409  f .  ; 
especially  also  his  Vorhereitung  zur  theol.  Hermeneutik,  Halle,  1760  ff.  4  Pts.  ; 
in  part  also  his  Paraphrasen  (§  573).  He  seized  upon  Bengal's  idea  of 
families,  and  made  out  of  it  what  he  called,  inappropriately,  the  system  of 
recensions  (Lucian  and  Egypt),  which,  though,  it  is  true,  with  essential 
modification  and  much  clearer  definition,  has  ever  since  been  one  of  the  lead- 
ing thoughts  of  N.  T.  criticism. 

At  the  head  of  the  modern  collections  undertaken  for  the  enrichment  of 
the  apparatus,  not  contemplating  a  direct  working  out  of  the  problem,  stands 
the  collation  carried  on  at  the  expense  of  the  Danish  government  by  A. 
Birsch,  J.  G.  C.  Adler,  and  D.  G.  Moldenhauer,  particularly  at  Rome, 
Florence,  Vienna,  in  the  Escurial ;  by  Adler  for  the  Syriac  versions  also,  the 
results  of  which  were  deposited  in  the  following  works.  Quatuor  Evv.  gr.  c. 
var.  a  textu  (Stephens,  1.550,  or  properly  Mill)  lectionibus  e  codd.  vatic,  etc., 
Hafn.  1788,  4°,  also  copies  in  fol.  This  edition  was  damaged  in  a  conflagra- 
tion, and  was  not  completed.  Without  text  :  Var'ue  lectiones  ad  textum  Act. 
et  Epp.  e  codd.,  etc.,  Hafn.  1798  ;  Apoc,  1800  ;  Evangg.,  1801,  3  vols.  8°  ; 
Adler,  Uebersicht  MM.  kritiscken  Reise  nach  Rom,  Alt.  1783.  On  the  Copen- 
hagen MvSS.  in  particular  see  C.  G.  Hensler,  1784.  Cf.  Michaelis,  N.  Bibli- 
oth.,  VI.  104  ;  Eichhorn,  Bibl,  II.  116. 

F.  C.  Alter  had  the  N.  T.  printed  (1786  f.  2  vols.  8°)  according  to  a  Vi- 
enna cursive  MS.,  correcting,  as  he  says,  only  obvious  faults,  and  added  to 
the  whole  the  readings  from  twenty-four  other  Vienna  MSS.  as  well  as  the 
Slavic  and  Co})tic  versions,  unfortunately  not  in  summary  form  but  sepa- 
rately from  each  source.  His  text  is  in  very  many  passages  the  Compluten- 
sian.  He  very  seldom  agrees  with  other  editions  against  Elzevir.  Of  his 
new  readings  he  has  many  in  common  with  Griesbach  or  Matthfei.  The 
rest  are  almost  entirely  valueless.  Cf.  Delitzscli,  Handschrifd.  Funde,  II.  23. 
—  Monographs  on  various  Vienna  codices  before  this  time  :  H.  Trescho, 
1773  ;  A.  C.  Hwild,  1785.     Cf.  Michaelis,  I.  I.,  V.  122  ;  Eichhorn,  I.  I.,  102. 


430  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED  TEXT. 

On  particular  uncial  MSS.  see  the  monographs  in  §  392  ;  on  the  more 
noted  cursives  :  G.  G.  Fappelbaum,  on  three  Berlin  MSS.,  179G,  1815,  1824  ; 
on  the  Ebuer  MSS.  at  Nuremberg,  C.  Schoiileben,  1738,  and  Gabler,  0pp., 
I.  215  ;  on  the  Cod.  Molshemensis  at  Strassburg,  Arendt,  in  the  Quartalschr., 
1833,  p.  24G  ;  on  the  Cod.  Montfortianus  at  DuUin,  Paulus,  Mem.,  VI.,  VIII.; 
on  the  Pressburg  MS.,  EntUicher,  in  Rosenmiiller's  Si/IL,  IV.  ;  on  the  Cod. 
SeideUanus  at  Frankfurt  am  O.,  Middeldorpf,  ibidem,  and  in  Rosenmiiller's 
Rep.,  II.  87  ;  on  the  Cod.  Uffenhachianus  at  Hamburg,  Henke,  1800,  and  Gab- 
ler, 0pp.,  I.  197  ;  and  many  others. 

Other  collections  of  variants,  with  and  without  theoretical  and  practical 
discussion  :  J.  Derinout,  Collectanea  critica  in  N.  T.  (mostly  from  Dutch 
MSS.),  Leyd.  1825  ;  W.  F.  Rink,  Lucuhratio  critica  in  Act.  et  Epp.  (from 
Venetian  MSS.,  with  an  attack  upon  the  exclusive  preference  given  to  Alex- 
andrian and  Western  witnesses),  Basle,  1830  ;  cf.  the  same  writer,  in  the 
Studien,  1846,  II.  ;  J.  G.  Reiche,  Comm.  criticus  in  N.  T.,  I.-III.  1853  ff. 
4°  ;  idem,  Codd.  paris.  insigniorum  nova  descriptio,  Gcitt.  1847. 

412.  At  the  head  of  modern  critics,  in  fame  if  not  in  time, 
stands  Johaiin  Jacob  Griesbach,  once  professor  at  Jena.  He 
carried  out  the  idea  of  ancient  recensions  of  the  text,  attempted 
to  establish  it  historically  and  diplomatically,  and  built  there- 
upon a  system  according  to  which  the  text  reLitively  most 
widely  circulated  was  given  the  preference  ;  that  is  to  say,  that 
which  was  current  in  several  places,  in  the  East  as  well  as  in 
the  West.  He  did  not  therefore  neglect  the  rational  estimation 
of  particular  readings,  but  stood  by  the  Elzevir  text  so  long  as 
there  were  no  decisive  reasons  against  it.  His  own  industry 
and  new  preliminary  labors  by  his  contemporaries  placed  at  his 
disposal  the  richest  apparatus  that  had  ever  yet  been  at  the 
command  of  an  editor,  and  nature  gave  him  the  ability  to  use 
it  with  skill.  From  him  dates  the  favorable  presumption 
respecting  the  Alexandrine-Occidental  readings  which  still 
commends  them  to  most  critics,  though  in  part  for  other  rea- 
sons. His  theory,  it  is  true,  has  been  outgrown,  but  his  name 
will  always  be  mentioned  with  respect,  and  while  Germany 
will  never  forget  him  he  is  beginning  to  win  a  new  home  be- 
yond her  borders. 

J.  C.  W.  Augusti,  Ueher  GrieshacVs  Verdienste,  Bresl.  1812  ;  cf.  Doring, 
Deutsche  TheoL,  I.  531  ;  E.  Reuss,  in  Herzog's  Encyklopddie. 

Editions.  First  Recension.  I.  Lihri  N.  T.  historici,  Curt,  Halle,  1774,  8°, 
Pt.  I.,  II.,  containing  the  first  three  Gospels  in  harmonic  form.  —  II.  As  a 
second  part  belonging  to  the  foregoing,  Epistoke  N.  T.  et  Apoc,  Halle,  1775. 
—  III.  Si/nopsis  Evv.  Matth.  Marc.  Luc,  Halle,  1776  (only  a  title-page 
edition  of  the  former  Harmony).  —  IV.  Second  edition  of  the  historical 
books,  not  in  harmonic  form,  1777  (in  which  likewise  John  and  Acts  only 
title-page  edition),  together  with  No.  II.,  iV".  T.  gr.  textum  adjidem  codicum 
versionum  Patrum  rec.  et  lect.  var.  adj.  J.  J.  G.,  2  vols.  8°,  also  copies  4°.  The 
preface  treats  of  the  necessity  of  a  critical  revision  of  the  text  (with  refer- 
ence to  the  synoptic  arrangement  of  it),  and  gives  a  summary  of  the  appa- 
ratus and  of  the  rules  of  criticism.  The  variants  are  placed  beneath  the  text. 
Cf.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bihl,  IX.  44,  X.  52  ;  Ernesti,  Bl'd.,  XIV.  33,  98. 

Second  Recension.     V.  Principal  edition,  Curt,  Halle  and  London,  1796, 


GRIESBACH.  431 

180G,  2  vols.  8°,  also  copies  4°  ;  with  very  complete  apparatus,  especially  from 
Birseh  and  Alter  (§  411),  and  important  prolegomena  on  the  history  of  the 
text,  the  plan  of  the  new  work,  the  theory  of  criticism,  and  the  summary  of 
helps.  The  changes  introduced  between  the  text  aud  the  apparatus  are 
specially  indicated.  Cf.  Haenlein's  Journal,  IX.  1  ;  Gottinger  Bihl.,  IV. 
509  ;  Gabler,  Auserles.  Liter.,  III.  27.  Two  beautiful  reprints  of  this  edi- 
tion, London,  Mackinlay,  1809,  and  Rivington,  1818.  —  VI.  Synopsis,  Ed. 
2,  1797. 

Third  Recension.  VII.  Edition  de  luxe,  Goschen,  L.  1803-7,  4  vols,  fol., 
on  vellum  paper,  with  engravings,  but  not  altogether  tastefid  in  type  ;  with 
only  a  selection  of  variants,  marked  with  signs  indicating  their  value.  — 
VIII.  Manual  edition,  L.  1805,  8°,  with  short  critical  preface  and  a  selec- 
tion of  variants  marked  with  signs  of  their  value.  —  IX.  Si/nopsis,  Ed.  3, 
Curt,  L.  1809.  —  X.  Ed.  4,  1822.  —  XL  Mamial  edition,  Goschen,  L.  1825, 
a  repetition,  in  somewhat  larger  size,  of  VIII. 

Fourth  Recension.  XII.  N.  T.  Vol.  I.  a  revised  edition  of  V.,  improved 
in  the  critical  annotations,  but  not  in  the  text  (a  very  few  passages  excepted), 
and  enlarged  by  D.  Schulz,  Laue,  Berlin,  1827,  uncompleted.  Cf.  Allgem. 
Lit.  Zeitung,  181:9,  II.  481  ;  Winer's  Journal,  IX.  65. 

Here  belong,  beside  the  already  mentioned  Diss,  de  codd.  ev.  origenianis, 
1771,  and  Curce  in  hist,  textus  gr.  Epp.  pauL,  1777  (both  in  Griesbach's  0pp.), 
in  particular  :  Symholoi  criticce  ad  supplendas  et  corrigendas  var.  N.  T.  lec- 
tionum  collectiones,  Halle,  1785, 1793,  2  vols.,  in  which  are  full  descriptions  of 
many  MSS.  ;  also  an  uncompleted  Commentarius  crit.  i?i  gr.  N.  T.  textum, 
covering  only  Matthew  and  Mark,  first  published  in  many  separate  pro- 
grammes, afterward  all  together,  2  vols.  8°,  1798,  1811  ;  including  also  Mele- 
temata  de  vetustis  N.  T.  recensionibus. 

Griesbach  took  the  Elzevir  Textus  Receptus  for  his  basis,  and  altered  it 
only  where  he  thought  he  had  decisive  reasons  for  it,  simjjly  commending 
other  good  readings  in  the  margin.  His  choice  rested  primarily  upon  the 
theory  of  recensions,  but  secondarily  also  upon  the  philological  and  exegeti- 
cal  estimation  of  the  inner  contents  of  tlie  variants.  He  distinguished  three 
recensions  (by  which  he  meant  forms  of  the  text)  :  an  Occidental,  character- 
ized by  glosses  ;  an  Alexandrian,  by  grammatical  corrections  ;  aud  a  Con- 
stantinopolitan,  mingling  the  readings  of  the  others.  Only  the  second  was  a 
proper  recension  or  scholarly  revision  of  the  text.  The  agreement  of  the 
first  two  he  regarded  as  particularly  important,  often  decisive.  For  the 
rational  part  of  his  criticism,  see,  beside  the  larger  prolegomena,  the  preface 
to  the  manual,  and  Haenlein's  Journal,  IX.  8  ff. 

The  different  recensions  of  Griesbach  are  distinguished  from  one  another 
by  the  fact  that  the  first  more  often  puts  two  readings  in  the  text,  one  over 
against  the  other,  without  deciding  between  them,  while  the  second  more 
often  abandons  the  common  text.  The  third,  called  the  Leipzig  recension, 
or  sim2)ly  the  Griesbach  text,  the  text  most  widely  circulated  by  means  of 
the  manual  editions,  departs  only  a  little  more  from  the  foregoing.  But 
Griesbach's  results  are  strikingly  new  only  when  we  leave  out  of  account 
his  predecessors.  Mace,  Bengel,  Wetstein,  in  whom  by  far  the  most  of  his 
changes  are  already  found.  His  merit  is  not  to  be  underrated,  but  doubt- 
less much  that  would  not  be  an  honor  to  him  has  been  forgotten  through  the 
indulgence  of  his  contemporaries  and  successors.  Also,  much  of  what  he 
only  commended  in  the  margin  had  already  been  so  commended,  or  even  re- 
ceived into  tlie  text. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  this  form  of  the  text,  taken  as  a  whole,  was  so 
slightly  and  so  discreetly  altered  (so  that  it  is  in  reality  absurd  to  attempt 
to  characterize  the  previous  text  by  a  common  name,  as  something  radi- 
cally different),  Griesbach  foiuid  the  old  school  opposed  to  him.  (J.  Hart- 
mann,  Manila  c.  mutat.  text.,  etc.,  Rost.  1775.)     But  he  briefiy  and  conviu- 


432  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

cingly,  and  in  Germany  forever,  silenced  this  opposition  in  the  preface  of 
1775.  His  peculiar  critical  system,  on  the  contrary,  failed  to  give  satisfac- 
tion ;  partly  because  of  its  historically  doubtful  assumptions  ;  partly  because 
of  its  too  subjective  basis  ;  partly,  and  especially,  because  it  was  a  mere 
after-improvement  of  a  form  of  the  text  wholly  unattested,  which  had  arisen, 
so  to  sneak,  accidentally.  See  Bertholdt,  E'ml.,  I.  310  tr.  ;  Eichhorn,  Einl., 
IV.  2(50  ft'.  ;  Scliulz,  Prolegomena  to  his  edition  ;  Gabler,  Prcef.  ad  opp. 
Grieshachil,  II.  Griesbach's  system  was  attacked  most  vehemently  by  C. 
F.  Matthsei  (§  413)  in  the  writing  :  Ueber  die  sogen,  Recensionen  welche  der 
Herr  Abt  Bengel,  der  Herr  Dr.  Semler  und  der  Herr  G.  K.  R.  Grieshach  in- 
dem  Texte  des  N.  T.  wollen  entdeckt  haben,  L.  1804.  Yet  Hug  and  Eichhorn, 
in  particular,  followed  in  their  introductions  the  fundamental  thought  of  the 
system  of  recensions,  giving  it  a  more  definite  form,  and  distinguishing  an 
ancient  common  text  {koiv^  iKSoais)  and  several  actual  scholarly  recensions, 
etc.  (§  307  ff.).  C.  D.  Beck  also  professes  Griesbach's  principles  essentially 
in  his  text-book  :  Monogrammata  hermeneutices,  L.  1S03. 

The  text  of  Griesbach  is  repeated  in  the  editions  of  H.  A.  Schott  (at 
Jena,  f  1830)  with  Latin  version  and  variants.  I.  Marker,  L.  1805,  an  ac- 
curate reprint  of  the  first  recension  ;  the  readings  of  Griesbach  indicated  by 
special  type  in  the  text.  II.  Marker,  L.  1811,  reprint  of  the  second  recen- 
sion, with  rare  variations.  —  III.  Marker,  L.  1825,  the  same  recension,  with 
more  changes  ;  among  them  also  new  readings.  Repeated,  P.  J.  Boeklin, 
Christianstadt,  Norway,  1834.  (For  a  so-called  fourth  edition  of  Schott, 
see  §  418  ;  cf.  also  Gabler's  Journal,  III.  159.)  —  A  pseudo-Schott  edition, 
L.  1809  (i.  e.,  Feichtinger,  Linz)  ;  reprint  of  Schott's  Latin  version  with 
Griesbach's  third  recension  of  1805,  and,  like  that,  with  Goschen's  type.  The 
same  text  repeated,  Univ.  Press,  Camb.,  Mass.  1809  ;  Hillard,  Boston,  1825  ; 
Fo-.vler,  N.  Y.  1805  ;  a  stereotype  edition,  Walton  and  Maberly,  Lond. 
18j0,  1855,  and  freq.,  with  the  variants  of  Mill  and  Scholz.  —  Si/nopsis  Evv., 
ed.  Ue  Wette  and  Liicke,  Reimer,  Berlin,  1818,  4°;  repeated,  1842  ;  after 
Griasbach  1305  ;  yet  some  readings  of  1790  are  preferred. 

41o.  Griesbach's  most  violent  opponent.  Christian  Friedrich 
Matthiisi,  of  Moscow,  hit  upon  an  inlinitely  easier  way.  Pos- 
sessing more  tlian  a  hundred  manuscripts  wliicli  had  not  yet 
been  collated,  with  the  usual  weakness  of  human  vanity,  he 
ascribed  to  these  unbounded  value,  and  lioped  to  restore  the 
text  from  the  collation  of  them,  neglecting  all  other  a,pparatus. 
All  disfigurements  of  the  text  appeared  to  him  to  have  arisen, 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  from  the  pressing  into  it  of  scholia 
and  glosses,  and  he  therefore  proceeded  to  find  the  relatively 
purest  text  by  excluding  these.  From  the  nativity  of  his 
sources  it  was  natural  that  the  text  he  obtained  should  be  the 
later  Constantinopolitan  and  little  different  from  the  Elzevir. 
The  result  in  no  way  justified  his  passionate  attacks  upon  his 
predecessors. 

I.  JV.  T.  ex  codd.  mosquensihus  nimquam  antea  examinatis  emendavit  led. 
var.  animadv.  criticas  et  scholia  gr.  inedita  adj.  C.  F.  MaHhcei,  Hartknoch, 
Riga,  1732-1788,  12  vols.  8°;  properly  twelve  separate  title-pages,  one  for 
each  book  ;  Greek  and  Latin,  the  Vulgate,  printed  from  a  MSS.,  standing 
by  the  side  of  the  text.  The  Catholic  Epistles  appeared  first,  the  Gospels 
last.  Various  appendices  from  Greek  MSS.,  tables  of  contents,  superscrip- 
tions to  the  chapters,  etc.    Many  fac-similes  and  descriptions  of  MSS.    From 


MATTH^I  —  KNAPP.  433 

1785  Matth:«i  was  rector  of  the  Gymnasium  at  Meissen,  from  1789  Prof, 
of  Greek  Literature  at  Wittenberg,  from  1805  held  tlie  same  position  at 
Moscow,     t  1811. 

II.  Greek  only,  with  critical  notes,  Eusebian  and  Eutlialian  numbering, 
synaxaria,  and  indication  of  the  readings  in  use  in  the  Greek  Church.  Vol. 
I.,  Gospels,  Wittenb.  1803  ;  Vol.  II.,  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  Grau, 
Hof,  1804  ;  Vol.  III.  Pauline  Epistles  and  Apocalypse,  Schumann,  Ronneb. 
1807,  8°. 

He  divided  his  MSS.  into  Codices  perpetui,  Lectionaries,  and  MSS.  with 
scholia,  etc.,  and  found  the  purest  text  in  the  first.  He  paid  little  attention 
to  versions  and  patristic  quotations,  but  cherished  a  deep  respect  for  the  in- 
telligence and  industry  with  which  the  sacred  text  must  have  been  selected 
and  copied  b}^  Byzantine  (and  Russian  ?)  archimandrites  and  monks. 

The  two  editions  differ  in  but  very  few  passages.  Where  he  abandons 
the  common  text  he  frequently  agrees  with  the  Complutensian,  seldom  with 
Erasnuis.  Wholly  new  readings  are  not  very  numerous,  and  by  far  the 
most  of  them  occur  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  moreover,  later  critics  have  rejected 
them  almost  without  exception.  The  gain  from  his  labor  consists,  therefore, 
simply  in  the  collation,  and  his  invective  against  his  predecessors  (Ed.  I., 
pref.  to  Matthew  ;  Ed.  II.,  Vol.  I.  p.  G87  &.,  etc.,  and  §  412)  was  groundless. 
Cf.  Michaelis,  Or.  BibL,  XX.  106,  XXI.  20  ;  N.  BihL,  I.  207,  II.  1G2  ; 
Eichhorn,  BihL,  II.  303  ;  Schmidt,  Bibl,  VIII.  5. 

The  Elzevir  text  is  altered  according  to  Matthjei  in  many  passages  in  the 
edition  of  T.  Pharmakides,  Angelides,  Athens,  1842  fif.,  7  vols.  8°,  with  the 
commentaries  of  Euthymius,  CEcumenius,  Andreas  and  Aretas  (§§  51:7, 
631). 

414.  The  works  tlius  far  mentioned,  which  were  afterward 
followed  by  other  similar  and  more  extensive  ones,  liad  estab- 
lished two  facts  beyond  controversy:  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  traditional  text  could  no  longer  be  retained  without  altera- 
tion unless  seietice  was  to  be  of  less  service  to  the  Scri|itures 
than  to  the  lenst  of  the  otlier  books  of  antiquity ;  and  in  the 
second  place,  that  complete  certainty  of  results  was  iK)t  attain- 
able. Thence  came  and  still  comes,  for  some,  the  demand  that 
the  work  be  carried  on,  and  for  others,  more  numerous,  but 
less  courageous,  the  right  to  content  themselves  with  a  simple 
improvement  in  details,  adopting  the  most  certain  of  the  re- 
sults of  their  predecessors,  and  making  them  common  property 
by  means  of  neat  and  cheap  school  editions,  without  extensive 
critical  apparatus,  or  with  none  at  all.  No  doubt  the  decision 
in  each  particular  case  was  based  not  so  much  upon  a  definite 
theory  as  upon  an  approximate  judgment  in  accordance  with 
principles  easily  comprehended,  but  also  easily  changing. 

N.  T.  gr.  recoqnovit,  etc.,  G.  C.  Knapp  (f  1826,  Prof,  at  Halle),  Orphan- 
age, Halle,  1797,  1813,  1824,  1829,  1840,  each  two  parts,  small  8°.  The 
preface  gives  a  short  history  of  the  text  and  a  statement  of  the  particular 
point  of  view  of  the  editor.  Beneath  the  text  is  a  selection  of  vai'iants  and 
a  running  table  of  contents.  The  last  four  editions  have,  besides,  a  second 
preface  and  a  collection  of  the  conjectures  of  older  critics.  The  last  two 
editions  were  prefaced  or  edited  after  Knapp's  death  by  J.  C.  Thilo  and  M. 
Rddiger.  All  five  are  identical,  line  for  line,  and  are  praised  for  their  ex- 
28 


43-1         HISTORY  OF  THE  PKINTED  TEXT. 

cellent  punctuation,  whether  correctly  or  not  is  a  question  for  the  exegetes. 
See  also  llaenlein's  Journal,  XI.  508  ;  Winer's  Journal,  VII.  501. 

The  editions  of  Knapp  represent  a  twofold  recension,  in  the  first  and  sec- 
ond editions,  for  the  last  three  were  not  further  changed.  In  general  it 
may  be  said  that  the  Griesbach  recension  of  1796  is  the  basis,  and  that  the 
departure  from  it  consists  chiefly  in  the  fact  that  Knapp  verj^  often  con- 
tented himself  with  simply  inclosing  in  single  or  double  brackets  the  numer- 
ous glosses  which  Griesbach  had  expunged.  Yet  he  also  adopted  readings 
which  Griesbach  commended  in  the  margin,  but  more  often  goes  back  to  the 
Elzevir  text,  though  more  seldom  in  the  second  edition  than  in  the  first. 

Simple  reprints  of  Knapp's  second  recension  :  Valpy,  Loud.  1824  ;  Serig, 
L.  18:^8,  edited  by  C.  C.  von  Leutsch,  printed  by  Fischer,  with  Arias'  ver- 
sion (new  title-page,  without  Leutsch's  name,  1839) ;  the  printer  has  fre- 
quently changed  the  rhetorical,  logical,  and  critical  brackets  (round  and 
square).  — Weidmann,  L.  1832,  edited  by  A.  Goschen,  with  new  Latin  ver- 
sion, together  with  the  readings  of  Griesbach  and  Lachmann.  It  makes  no 
distinction  between  Knapp's  two  kinds  of  critical  brackets.  —  Nauck,  Berlin, 
1837,  with  Luther  and  the  two  kinds  of  brackets.  —  Starr,  N.  Y.,  edited  by 
R.  B.  Patton,  1835,  4°,  with  wide  margin,  on  blue  lines  for  use  in  public 
reading. 

Freer  revisions  of  Knapp's  text  (second  recension) :  Tauclmitz,  L.,  edited 
by  J.  A.  H.  Tittmanu  (Prof,  at  Leipzig,  f  1831),  18l0  (new  title-page, 
1828),  10°,  and  1824  (1831),  8°,  without  distinction  in  the  brackets.  It  not 
infrequently  departs  from  Knapp,  mostly  returning  to  Elzevir,  particularly 
by  the  erasure  of  brackets,  or  by  the  introduction  of  new  ones  holding  a 
position  intermediate  between  the  two  texts.  Griesbach's  readings  are  but 
seldom  adopted.  Some  new  ones  occur,  but  worthless.  This  Tauclmitz 
edition  was  revised  by  A.  Halm  (Prof,  at  Leipzig,  afterward  at  Breslau, 
f  1863),  with  the  addition  of  the  readings  of  Griesbach  and  Knapji,  as  well 
as  those  of  Scholz  and  Lachmann,  which  had  appeared  in  the  mean  time  ; 
1840,  exceptionally  finely  printed.  It  retains  perhaps  half  of  Tittmann's 
changes,  going  back  in  other  cases  more  frequently  either  to  Elzevir  or  to 
Griesbach,  but  also  taking  some  few  readings  from  Lachmann.  Repeated 
without  change  in  1841,  small  size,  two  columns,  verses  paragraphed.  The 
first  repeated  in  size  and  style,  1861,  frequently  changed  in  text,  yet  chiefly 
only  by  disappearance  of  the  brackets,  half  by  return  to  the  receptus,  half 
by  erasure.  —  Tittmann's  text  is  given  almost  unchanged  in  the  edition  of 
Anton  Jaumann,  Munich,  1832,  8°  (new  title-page,  1836).  Halm's  is  re- 
peated in  the  edition  prepared  by  E.  Robinson,  N.  Y.,  often  since  1842 
(stereotype),  also  sine  anno.  By  the  same  editor,  a  Harmony  of  the  Gos- 
pels, Crocker,  Boston,  1851,  and  freq.  —  Here  belongs  also  the  edition  be- 
gun by  J.  E.  R.  Kauffer,  Teubner,  L.  1827,  which,  however,  did  not  go 
beyond  Matthew. 

J.  S.  Vater  (Prof,  at  Halle,  f  1826)  follows  much  more  conservative  ten- 
dencies in  his  edition,  Gebauer,  Halle,  1824,  8°.  He  often  departs  from 
Knapp,  but  mostly  by  erasing  his  brackets,  or  by  introducing  them  where 
Knapp  had  stricken  out  glosses,  or  by  ex^ircssing  a  less  degree  of  doubt 
by  the  form  of  the  signs.  Yet  in  some  passages  the  criticism  is  more  severe 
than  in  Knapp,  and  portions  of  the  text  are  bracketed  which  Knapp  re- 
tained, but  Griesbach  had  stricken  out  ;  some,  indeed,  which  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf  were  the  first  to  reclaim.  By  far  the  most  of  his  new  readings 
have  remained  peculiar  to  himself  alone.  See  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1824,  IL 
161,  III.  453  ;  Winer's  Journal,  II.  332.  —  Thence  unchanged,  the  Gospels, 
Watts,  Lond.  1824,  4°,  with  Vulgate  and  Peshito. 

415.  In  more  recent  times,  after  various  attempts,  incomplete, 
but  not  unworthy  of  praise,  several  thorough  recensions  of  the 


VATER  -  SCHOLZ.  435 

text,  upon  principles  altogether  different,  have  been  prepared. 
First  to  be  mentioned,  as  the  earliest,  and  in  a  certain  sense 
aiding  the  maintenance  of  the  traditional  text,  is  that  of  Jo- 
hann  Martin  Augustin  Scholz.  The  author,  Professor  of  Cath- 
olic Theology  at  Bonn,  had  himself  increased  the  aids  to  criti- 
cism in  extent,  though  not  in  real  value,  while  on  his  journeys, 
especiiilly  in  the  Orient,  and  had  conceived  a  certain  prefer- 
ence for  his  new  additions.  Recognizing  the  distinction  of 
families,  yet  in  the  simplest  sense,  without  the  addition  of  the 
system  of  recensions,  he  aimed  to  adhere  to  that  family  in 
which  the  text  had  been  relatively  least  altered.  Now  he 
naturally  fonnd  the  greatest  agreement  among  the  witnesses  of 
the  Byzantine  family,  because  their  succession  is  more  com- 
plete and  unbroken,  but  also  much  later;  hence  he  thought  it 
was  to  be  assumed  that  its  text,  having  been  favored  by  geo- 
graphical circumstances,  went  back  to  the  most  ancient  times. 
These  principles,  however,  have  not  been  accepted  by  all  as 
sound. 

1.  The  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  by  H.  E.  G.  PanUis  (§  576),  Eohn, 
Liibeck,  1800  flf.  3  vols.  1804,  4  vols.,  contains  the  Griesbaeli  text,  but  re- 
vised in  many  passages  according  to  the  original  authorities,  agreeing  often 
with  Harwood,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf. 

2.  Similar,  but  wholly  independent  of  the  foregoing,  the  commentaries  of 
C.  F.  A.  Fritzsche  (§  592)  on  Matthew,  1826,  Mark,  1830  (Fleischer,  L.), 
and  Romans,  1836  if.  (Gebauer,  Halle).  —  Essentially  the  same  text  of  the 
Gospels  is  repeated  in  the  edition  of  F.  A.  A.  Niibe,  Kiihler,  L.  1831,  with 
a  new  Latin  version  ;  in  other  portions  it  holds  almost  exclusively  to  Knapp, 
but  attempts  some  unhappy  emendations. 

3.  The  text  is  revised  more  thoroughly  still  in  F.  Bleek's  Commentary 
(§  593)  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Diimmler,  Berlin,  1836  f. 

4.  The  Harmony  of  M.  Rodiger,  Grunert,  Halle,  1829  and  1839,  also  pro- 
fesses to  present  Griesbach's  text.  Yet  it  not  infrequently  abandons  it,  and 
agrees  in  its  changes  mostly  with  Tischendorf,  often  also  with  Lachmann. 

5.  Yet  more  independent,  and  departing  considerably  more  from  Gries- 
bach,  the  N.  T.  (with  Commentary,  §  592)  of  H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  Vanden- 
hoek,  Gott.  1829,  the  text  of  which  likewise  approaches  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf. 

6.  N.  T.  gr.  textum  ad  fidem  testium  criticorum  rec.  lectionum  familias  sub- 
fecit  copias  criticas  add.  J.  M.  A.  Scholz,  Fleischer,  L.  1830,  1836,  2  vols.  4° 
(printed  by  Andrese,  Frankfurt).  Between  the  text  and  the  very  rich  cata- 
logue of  variants  with  references  to  authorities  and  manuscript  nomencla- 
ture (affecting  nearly  30,000  portions  of  the  text)  stand  those  readings 
which  are  most  widely  current  in  the  families  of  witnesses,  but  to  which 
others  are  here  preferred. 

The  2)rolegomena,  beside  the  matter  otherwise  customary,  carry  out  the 
thought  that  there  are  two  classes  of  witnesses,  those  agreeing  with  the 
Textus  Receptus  and  those  differing  froni  it;  the  former  of  which  he  calls 
Oriental  or  Constantinopolitan,  the  latter  Alexandrian  and  Occidental.  Now 
since  the  latter  differ  much  among  themselves,  while  the  Oriental  agree,  the 
Oriental  should  have  the  preference  !  The  apparatus  was  rather  externally 
increased  by  Scholz  than  internally  sifted.  His  simplification  of  the  system 
of  families  was  really  a  result  of  prejudice.     All  that  does  not  agree  with 


43G  HISTORY  OF  tpie  printed  text. 

the  numerous  Byzantine  MSS.  is  called  Alexandrian,  and  is  regarded  as  sus- 
picious on  account  of  the  arbitrariness  of  grammarians,  as  if  there  were 
grammarians  nowhere  else,  and  the  Alexandrian  text  could  never  have  be- 
come mingled  with  the  Constantmopolitan.  Altogether  unproved,  also,  is 
the  comiection  of  the  Constantinopolitan  text,  which  certainly  was  not  the 
standard  before  the  fourth  century,  with  that  of  the  early  churches  of  Asia 
Minor,  and  upon  the  basis  of  contemporary  testimony  (§§  366,  369)  it  might 
be  altogether  denied. 

As  respects  the  results  of  the  operations  based  upon  this  theory,  Scholz 
certainly  departs  often  from  Elzevir,  but  much  more  frecpiently  from 
the  so-called  Alexandrian  text,  to  which  Griesbach  gave  the  preference,  and 
later  critics  still  more.  But  inasmuch  as  Griesbach  did  not  dej^art  from  the 
common  text  unless  compelled  to  do  so,  the  two  recensions  in  reality  resem- 
ble each  other  much  more  than  would  be  expected  upon  principles  so  totally 
different.  Of  wholly  peculiar  readings,  departing  from  Elzevir  and  Gries- 
bach alike,  Scholz  has  but  few,  but  in  many  of  them  has  Lachmanu  in  his 
favor. 

To  this  recension  belong  the  following  works  by  the  editor  (f  1851) :  Bih- 
liscJi  kritische  Beise  durch  Frankreich,  die  Schioeiz,  Italien,  PalciMina  und 
Archipelagus  1818-1821,  L.  1823  ;  Curce  criticce  in  Hist,  textus  evv.,  Pt.  I., 
II.,  Heidelb.  1820  (Pt.  I.  also  under  the  title  De  critica  N.  T.  generatijii)  ; 
Dc  virtutibus  et  viliis  utriusque  codicum  familice,  L.  1845.  For  other  writings 
of  the  same  author  see  §§  21,  383,  392. 

Cf.  Vater,  in  the  Kirchenhist.  Archiv,  1824,  I.  ;  Schulthess,  Annalen,  1826, 
II.  481-530  ;  Gabler,  preface  to  Griesbach's  0pp.,  II.  p.  14  ;  Allgem.  Lit. 
Zeitung,  1834,  I.  306  ;  Tischendorf,  p.  417. 

Scholz'  text  is  simply  reprinted,  with  English  version  added,  and  variants 
from  Griesbach  and  older  editors,  Bagster,  Lond.,  sine  anno  (§  406)  ;  the 
variants  in  the  margin.  Title-page  edition,  Wiley,  N.  Y.  1859.  The  Greek 
text  in  Bagster's  English  Hexapla,  1844  (1860),  4°,  is  also  from  Scholz. 

416.  But  the  g^reatest  departure  from  the  text  previously 
common  was  made  by  Carl  Lachmanu,  Professor  at  Berlin, 
the  first  noted  critic  of  the  New  Testament  for  more  than 
a  century  wlio  did  not  properly  belong  among  professional  the- 
ologians. Proceeding  from  the  idea  that  it  is  impossible  ever 
to  lecover  the  original  text,  because  of  the  lack  of  coutempo- 
rary  witnesses,  and  that  the  weighing  of  readings  according  to 
critical  rules  is  ratlier  an  apparent  than  a  real  aid,  he  believed 
that  nothing  remained  for  criticism  to  do  but  to  restore  the 
relatively  oldest  text  which  can  be  discovered  by  the  aid  of  the 
extant  documents.  For  this  purpose  there  was  need  of  but 
a  very  small  number  of  manuscripts,  but  often  also,  when  his 
chosen  witnesses  left  him  in  the  lurch,  of  bold  decision.  But 
no  edition  was  better  fitted  than  his,  as  compared  with  the 
common  text,  to  place  in  clear  light  the  indescribable  arbitra- 
riness with  which  the  copyists  must  once  have  gone  to  work. 
This  theory  has  found  enthusiastic  admirers,  but  naturally 
could  not  be  accepted  as  the  last  word  of  science. 

N.  T.  gr.  ex.  rec.  C.  Lachmnnni  ed.  stereot.,  Reimer,  B.  1831  (new  title- 
page,  1837,  1846,  also  copies  without  date);  the  text  only,  and  at  the  end  the 
variants  of  the  Textus  Receptus.  —  N.  T.  gr.  et  lat.  C.  Lachmannus  recen- 


LACHMANN.  487 

suit,  Ph.  Buttmannus  grcBCce  lectionis  auctoritates  apposuit,  B.  1842-1850,  2 
vols.     Also,  an  account  of  his  edition  in  the  Studien,  1330,  IV.  SIT-Sio. 

[See  his  Biography,  by  Hertz,  Berlin,  1851  ;  the  article  Biheltext  des  N. 
T.,  by  O.  von  Gebhardt,  'in  Herzog's  EncykL,  2d  ed.,  II.  425  if.  Also  Tre- 
gelles.  Account,  etc.,  p.  99  ;  Wescott  and  Hort,  GV.  Test.,  II.  13  ;  Abbot,  in 
Schaff's  Relig.  Encycl.,  I.  275  ;  Schaff,  Companion,  p.  254  ff.] 

The  purpose  of  Lachmann  (f  1851)  was  not  to  restore  the  true  text,  but 
the  oldest  accessible  to  us,  in  order,  from  this  as  a  starting  point  (not  from 
the  bad  common  text,  as  all  before  him,  even  Griesbach,  had  done),  to  enter 
upon  further  investigations  and  improvements.  He  hoped  first  to  discover 
the  text  as  it  was  read  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  and  made  it  up,  for  the  East, 
mostly  from  A,  B,  C,  also  P,  Q,  T,  Z  for  the  Gospels,  H  for  Paul,  and  from 
Origen  ;  for  the  West,  from  D,  G  for  Paul ;  for  the  Gospels  from  the  oldest 
MSS.  of  the  Itala  ;  in  general  from  Irenseus,  Cyprian,  Hilary  of  Pictavium, 
Lucifer  ;  and  for  the  Apocalypse  from  Primasius.  1)  Gospels  and  E  Acts, 
as  well  as  the  Vulgate,  are  given  but  a  secondary  position.  If  both  families 
agree,  or  some  of  the  witnesses  of  one  with  all  tliose  of  the  othei-,  the  read- 
mg  is  decided  ;  if  they  are  divided  on  both  sides  it  is  uncertain,  and  one 
reading  (which  ?)  is  placed  in  the  text  and  the  other  in  the  margin.  In  the 
second  edition  the  above-mentioned  witnesses  are  always  fully  noted  ;  noth- 
ing at  all  is  said  of  Byzantine  witnesses. 

The  idea  of  this  work  is  correct;  the  aids,  even  for  this  purpose,  wholly 
insufticient.  The  MSS.  (of  which  the  most  important,  B,  C,  were  not  at  all 
accurately  collated)  are  so  defective  that  for  considerable  portions  but  a 
single  witness  remains  (§  392),  for  the  Occidental  family  none  at  all  but  the 
Vulgate  (e.  g.,  in  the  Catholic  Epistles)  ;  but  the  text  of  the  latter  (§  456) 
is  itself  still  in  a  very  bad  state,  notwithstanding  Lachmann's  pains  to  restore 
it  critically. 

The  conscientiousness  of  the  editor  went  so  far  as  to  admit  into  the  text 
manifest  clerical  errors  when  they  were  sufficiently  attested  by  ancient  au- 
thorities. This  should  have  prevented  his  imitators  from  ascribing  to  this 
text  any  other  than  the  relative  value  which  Lachmann's  principles  might 
naturally  vindicate  for  it.  With  a  more  correct  appreciation  of  the  immedi- 
ate design  the  criticism  would  have  been  more  favorable  and  the  praise  due 
would  not  have  been  wrongly  directed.  See  Rettig,  in  the  Studien,  1832, 
IV.  ;  C.  F.  A.  Fritzsche,  De  conformatioie  N.  T.  critica  quam  C.  L.  dedit, 
Giessen,  1841  ;  D.  Sclmlz,  De  aliquot  locc.  N.  T.  lectione,  Br.  1833.  Also, 
Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1833,  I.  409  ;  1834,  I.  309  ;  Tischendorf,  in  the  Jena  Allg. 
Lit.  Zeitung,  Apr.  1843,  and  in  his  edition  of  1849,  Prolegg.,  p.  41  ;  ed.  of 
1859,  Prolegg.,  p.  102  ff.  ;  Wieseler,  in  the  Studien,  1861,  IV. 

The  criticism  of  Lachmann's  collaborator,  Ph.  Buttmann,  in  the  N.  T. 
published  by  Teubner,  L.  1856,  is  confined  to  still  narrower  limits.  It  is 
said  to  be  based  essentially  upon  the  single  Cod.  B,  and  where  this  is  defec- 
tive upon  Cod.  A .  The  readings  of  G,  L,  T  and  Elzevir  in  the  margin.  The 
text  thus  obtained  agrees  mostly  with  Lachmann,  or  with  Tischendorf. 
Other  clianges  are  rare  ;  but  what  Lachmann  simply  bracketed  is  often 
erased.  New  edition,  1860  (1864,1865).  —  By  the  same  editor.  Decker, 
B.  1862,  an  edition  holding  yet  more  strictly  to  the  Cod.  Vatic.  ;  printed  in 
uncials. 

With  the  Lachmann  family  are  also  to  be  reckoned  :  the  edition  of  V. 
Loch,  Manz,  Regensb.,  1862,  agreeing  mostly  with  Buttmann,  but  often  only 
bracketing  glosses  stricken  out  by  him  ;  that  begun  by  Westcott  and  Hort, 
Univ.  Press,  Cambridge,  1870;  the  Harmony  of  H.  Levin,  Niedner,  Wiesb., 
1866  ;  the  critical  edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  by  J.  T.  Vdmel, 
1865.  Also  the  recension  of  the  Acts  on  the  basis  of  Cod.  D,  Cantabr.,  by 
F.  A.  Bornemann,  Grossenhain,  1848,  may  properly  be  mentioned  here. 

The  N.  T.  of  E.  von  Muralt,  Meissuer,  Hamb.,  1846,  and,  with  complete 


438  HISTORY   OF   THE   PRINTED   TEXT. 

apparatus,  1848  (title-page  edition,  1860),  also  professes  allegiance  to  Laeh- 
manu's  principles.  It  promises  integram  varietatetn  cetatis  apostolicce,  and  a 
text  founded  upon  the  versions  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  the  Alex- 
andrian MSS.  of  the  fourth  and  fifth,  the  Grseco-Latin  MlSS.  of  the  sixth  to 
the  eio-hth,  and  a  number  of  new  St.  Petersburg  MSS.,  as  well  as  the  Slavic 
version.  Here,  evidently,  some  of  the  sources  are  overestimated  as  to  age  ; 
the  placing  of  Cod.  Vat.  at  the  foundation  (and  this  holds  true  also  of  Lach- 
niann  and  Buttmann),  in  view  of  the  generosity  of  the  Roman  librarian,  who 
forbids  the  noting  of  variants  (Muralt,  in  Renter's  Rep.,  185li,  p.  7),  and  of  the 
untrustworthy  character  of  the  older  collations  of  this  MS.,  cannot  give  abso- 
lute confidence,  and  the  new  collation  of  Russian  treasures  can  bring  no  impor- 
tant gain.  Cf.  Studien,  1849,  III.  735.  The  text  is  overloaded  with  signs 
of  all  kinds  for  the  direct  indication  of  the  principal  sources.  It  returns 
very  frequently  to  Elzevir  ;  in  particular,  and  very  suddenly,  from  the  point 
at  which  Cod.  B  fails. 

417.  Lachmann's  fundamental  idea  is  also  the  ruling  princi- 
ple of  the  criticism  of  Constantine  Tischendorf,  the  most  inde- 
fatigable of  our  New  Testament  textual  critics.  For  he  also 
recognized  no  higher  recommendation  for  a  witness  than  its 
age,  and  had  therefore  little  to  do  with  the  great  mass  of  them 
and  the  common  text  that  has  come  from  them.  But  he  would 
not  forego  his  own  judgment  of  readings,  and  simply  keep  rec- 
ord of  what  has  happened  to  be  preserved  from  ancient  times. 
Moreovei-,  he  comprehended  from  the  first  the  fact  tliat  the 
fewer  witnesses  one  chooses  to  recognize  as  authoritative,  the 
more  certain  must  he  be  of  them.  And  as  at  the  beginning  of 
his  work  he  was  still  young  enough  to  hope  that  the  original 
text  could  yet  be  found,  he  was  also  bold  enough  not  to  be 
afraid  of  the  immense  labor  of  the  necessary  preparatory  stud- 
ies. He  also  unearthed  rich  treasures  for  this  purpose  both 
East  and  West,  and  made  them  accessible  to  the  learned  world  ; 
and  if  in  the  future  any  more  definite  results  are  to  be  obtained 
than  he  himself  reached,  it  will  be  due  to  his  toil. 

I.  N.  T.  gr.  textum  adfidem  antiq.  testium  rec.  hrevem  apparatum  crit.  c.  var. 
lectt.  (of  the  principal  recensions  of  modern  times,  together  with  Elzevir)  suh- 
junxit  comment,  isagog.  prcemisit  G.  F.  C.  Tischendorf,  Kcihler,  L.  1841,  16°. 
Containing  also  the  treatise  De  recensionibus  quas  dicunt  textus  N.  T.  ratione 
potissimum  liahita  Scholzii,  L.  1840.  Cf.  his  essays  in  the  Heidelh.  Studien, 
1842,  II.;  1844,  II.;  in  the  Jena  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  Apr.  1843  ;  and  in  Her- 
zog's  Encykl.,  Art.  Bibeltext,  p.  181  ft".  In  the  Prolegomena  the  variations 
between  Elzevir  I.  and  Stephens  III.,  between  Griesbach  and  Knapp,  and 
between  Matthjei  and  Griesbach  are  also  summarily  indicated.  —  See  Rink, 
in  the  Studien,  1842,  II.  ;  D.  Schulz,  in  the  Jena  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  June, 
1842.  —  This  first  recension  of  Tischendorf  departs  farthest  of  all  from  the 
common  text,  even  more  than  Lachmann,  and  many  of  its  readings  were 
afterward  quietly  retracted. 

II.  N.  T.  gr.  ad  antiquos  testes  rec.  lectionesque  var.  Elzevir.  Stephan.  Griesb. 
notavit  C.  Tischendorf,  Firmin  Didot,  Paris,  1842,  12°.  The  variants  men- 
tioned in  the  title  stand  together  at  the  close.  Verses  paragraphed.  The 
edition  is  dedicated  to  Guizot.  This  edition  may  be  regarded  as  in  the  main 
a  little  changed  repetition  of  the  preceding. 


TISCHENDORF.  439 

III.  N.  T.  gr.  et  lat.  Textum  versionis  vulgatce  latince  in  antiquis  testibus 
V.  S.  V.  Jager  in  consilium  adhibito  indagavit  C.  Tischendorf.  Opus  DD.  Affre 
archiepiscopo  paris.  dicatum,  Par.  1842,  large  8°;  also  1842  (1847, 1851, 185U), 
12°,  without  the  version  and  the  critical  apparatus  of  the  larger  edition. 
(On  the  title-page  of  the  two  latest  impressions  Jager  is  shamelessly  named 
as  the  real  editor,  and  Tischendorf's  Prolegomena  are  printed  without  his 
name.)  The  idea  of  restoring  a  Greek  text  which  should  give  the  original 
of  the  Vulgate  is  in  itself  an  interesting  one,  but  upon  closer  consideration 
merely  preliminary,  and  in  any  case  for  a  long  time  yet  impracticable,  and 
the  attempt  now  under  consideration  is  in  many  respects  unsatisfactory. 
For  (1)  the  Vulgate  grew  up  from  various  sources,  and  is  therefore  itself  an 
arbitrary  mixed  text  ;  (2)  its  own  text  is  in  a  sad  state  of  neglect  and  highly 
uncertain  ;  (3)  the  Clementine  text,  made  the  basis  by  Tischendorf,  has  no 
critical  value  whatever,  and  has  perhaps  itself  been  altered  in  accordance 
with  the  Greek  ;  (4)  the  choice  of  Greek  readings  to  constitute  the  new  text 
is  not  made  upon  very  fixed  principles,  and  where  the  Latin  is  not  decisive 
the  other  recension,  afterward  changed  throughout  by  Tischendorf  himself, 
is  followed.  Consequently,  especially  considering  the  complete  silence  re- 
specting the  authorities  used  in  each  case,  nothing  is  gained  for  the  main 
object,  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  "  the  Catholic  theologians  of  France 
will  now  learn  Greek  more  gladly  and  more  easily."  It  is  noteworthy  how 
few  peculiar  readings  result  from  this  mode  of  procedure,  while  the  agree- 
ment with  the  previous  Tischendorf  editions  is  exceedingly  frequent. 

IV.  N.  T.  gr.  ad  antt.  testes  rec.  apparatum  crit.  multis  modis  auctum  et 
correctum  apposuit  comm.  isag.  prcemisit  C.  Tischendorf,  Winter,  L.  1849,  8°. 
The  preface  gives  an  account  of  the  travels  of  the  editor  (on  which  see 
especially  §  392)  and  of  his  critical  principles  and  aids.  A  rich  catalogue  of 
variants  with  references  in  the  lower  margin.  Catholic  Epistles  before  Paul. 
Second  principal  recension,  returning  very  frequently  to  older  readings,  but 
giving  up  mostly  those  of  Lachmann,  not  Tischendorf. 

V.  N.  T.  gr.  rec.  C.  Tischendorf  stereot.  ed.,  B.  Tauchnitz,  L.  1850,  8°, 
with  a  brief  summary  of  the  critical  witnesses  (i.  e..  Uncial  MSS.  and 
versions)  and  Elzevir  readings  in  the  lower  margin.  Arrangement  of  books 
the  same.  The  text,  with  two  wholly  isolated  exceptions,  is  repeated  from 
IV.     (New  title-page,  1862.) 

Synopsis  evangelica  ex  quatuor  evv.  ordine  chronologico  (with  John  also  broken 
up)  rec.  prcetexto  brevi  comment,  ill.  (i.  e.,  with  a  critical  preface)  ad  antt.  testes 
. .  .  rec.  C.  Tischendorf,  L.  1851,  8°,  with  the  collection  of  variants  as  in  IV. 
(This  Harmony  was  repeated  in  1854.)  It  gives  the  same  text  as  V.,  except 
that  it  introduces  the  pericopes  Mk.  xvi.  and  Jn.  viii.  in  brackets  instead  of 
omitting  them  altogether.  The  new  edition  of  1864  (1871)  has  a  changed 
text. 

VI.  N.  T.  gr.  rec.  inque  usum  acad.  instruxit  C.  Tischendorf.  Really  a  tri- 
lingual edition,  with  Luther  and  the  Latin  (from  it  the  Greek  separately, 
18o5,  1857,  1861,  1864  ;  Greek  and  Latin,  1858  ;  Greek  and  German,  1864), 
Mendelssohn,  L.  1854  (1865),  with  a  small  selection  of  variants  and  the 
Eusebian  numbering  in  the  Gospels.  Usual  order  of  the  books.  The  same 
text,  altered  only  in  a  few  places  (mostly  with  Lachmann). 

VII.  N.  T.  gr.  ad  antiquos  testes  denuo  rec.  apparatum  crit.  otnni  studio  per- 
fectum  apposuit  commentaiionem  isag.  prmtextuit  C.  Tischendorf,  Winter,  L. 
1856-1859,  2  vols.,  8°.  Third  principal  recension.  Returns  to  a  considerable 
extent  to  Elzevir  and  Griesbach,  yet  also  brings  out  again  many  readings 
before  given  up  from  the  edition  of  1841,  and  lays  claim  to  special  merit  (a 
very  doubtful  claim)  in  a  completely  altered,  alleged  original  apostolic 
orthography  and  syntax,  beside  speaking  more  fully  than  ever  before  in  the 
Prolegomena  of  the  helps.  An  editio  minor  appeared  simultaneously,  which 
contains,  under  the  same  text,  a  selection,  much  too  extensive  for  a  manual, 
from  the  exceedingly  rich  apparatus  of  the  other  edition. 


440         HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT. 

VIII.  Editio  octaoa  critica  maior,  Giesecke  and  Devrient,  L.  1864-1872, 
2  vols.  8°.  Fourth  principal  recension.  Differs  greatly  from  the  preceding, 
and  in  such  a  way  that  the  common  readings  adopted  in  VII.  are  al- 
most all  set  aside  again,  and  more  frequently  still  those  peculiar  to  Lach- 
rnann,  or  which  appeared  for  the  fii"st  time  in  I.  and  II.,  and  were  after- 
ward abandoned,  are  introduced.  Critical  prolegomena  are  still  lacking. 
[Tischendorf  was  prevented  by  a  stroke  of  apoplexy,  May  5,  1873,  followed 
by  paralysis  and  death,  Dec.  7,  1874,  from  preparing  the  Prolegomena  to  his 
eighth  edition.  The  work  was  entrusted  in  1876  to  Dr.  Caspar  Rene 
Gregory,  an  American  scholar  residing  at  Leipzig,  with  the  aid  of  Dr.  Ezra 
Abbot  of  Cambridge,  Mass.,  and  finished  in  1883.] 

\ Novum  Testamentum  Gr(ece,  etc.,  editio  octava  critica  minor,  in  one  volume  ; 
the  same  text  as  the  major,  with  the  principal  readings.  The  best  manual 
edition  is  that  by  O.  von  Gebhardt,  with  the  readings  of  Tregelles  and 
Westcott  and  Hort  :  Novum  Test.  Grace  Recensionis  Tischendorjiance  uUimce 
Textum  cum  Tregellesiano  et  Westcottio-Hortiano  contulit  et  brevi  adnotatione 
critica  additisque  locis  parallelis  illustravit  0.  de  G.,  L.  1881  ;  the  same  text 
with  Luther's  revised  German  version,  L.  1881.] 

The  great  divex'sity  of  Tischendorf 's  text  in  these  four  recensions  (for  Ed. 
III.  is  not  to  be  considered  here),  to  some  extent  even  in  the  reprints  which 
appeared  between  them,  is  to  be  attributed  not  so  much  to  any  defect  in  his 
theory  of  criticism  as  to  the  necessity  of  at  once  turning  to  account  the  vast 
accessions  to  the  helps  won  by  the  editor  himself.  In  the  last  stage  of  his 
work,  Tischendorf  probably  had  at  his  command  more  than  twice  as  many 
witnesses  of  the  first  rank  (according  to  his  principles)  as  at  the  beginning 
of  it.  In  view  of  this  ever-increasing  enrichment,  perhaps  a  diilerent 
method  might  have  commended  itself.  A  happy  combination  of  Laclimanu's 
idea  and  Tischendorf 's  richness  would  have  given  a  firm  basis  for  the  future, 
whereas  now,  through  the  influence  of  subjective  judgment,  which  is  neces- 
sarily subject  to  change,  the  whole  matter  has  come  into  a  state  of  uncer- 
tainty, which  the  next  period  will  no  longer  tolerate. 

Special  mention  is  due  here  to  the  diplomatic-critical  preliminary  labors 
of  Tischendorf,  some  of  which  have  already  been  referred  to,  in  his  splendid 
editions  of  single  MSS.  (§  392),  among  which,  in  particular,  Ephnm,  Claro- 
montanus,  and  Sinaiticus,  and  collections  of  documents  :  Monumenta  sacra 
inedita,  1846  ;  Collectio  nova,  1855  flf.  5  vols.  ;  Anecdota  sacra  et  pmfana, 
1855  (I860)  ;  also  Latin  (§§  453,  456),  and  apocryphal  (§  243).  Of.  in 
general  J.  E.  Volbeding,  C.  Tischendorf  in  s.  SBjahrigen  schriftstellerischen 
Wirksamkeit,  L.  1862.  [Dr.  Abbot's  article  in  the  Unitarian  Review,  March, 
1875  ;  Dr.  Gregory,  in  the  Bib.  Sac,  Jan.  1876  ;  Dr.  Von  Gebhardt,  in 
Herzog's  Encj/kL,  liew  ed.  1878,  II.  429  fP.  ;  SchafP,  Companion,  p.  i:57  ff_.] 

None  of  Tischendorf 's  recensions  have  thus  far  been  simply  reproduced  in 
other  editions,  except  VII.  in  the  Evangelientafel  of  M.  H.  Schulze,  L.  1861. 

418.  But  to  arrive  at  any  fixed  ami  final  result  is  precisely 
what  German  science,  since  the  advent  of  these  modern^  criti- 
cal systems,  has  done  even  less  than  before.  The  selection  of 
readings  which  each  one  may  take,  according  to  his  taste,  from 
the  extant  editions,  and  that  with  the  guaranty  marks  of  a 
competent  firm,  has  become  a  greater  task,  —  to  the  conscien- 
tious scholar  a  more  difficult  one,  to  the  ordinary  supplier  of 
the  market  a  welcome  one,  because  so  easily  assuring  tlie  ap- 
pearance of  independence.  Moreover,  the  mingling  of  elements 
is  implied  in  growth.  That  in  view  of  this  confusion,  destruc- 
tive to  exegesis,  if  not  to  theology,  conservative  minds  often  seek 


OTHER  EDITIONS   IN   GERMANY.  441 

and  find  the  remedy  in  the  old  text  unaltered  should  not  sur- 
prise us.  The  comparison  of  all  those  who,  in  our  times,  have 
not  been  able  to  attach  themselves  unconditionally  to  any  one 
leader  will  show  very  clearlj^  how  diverse  are  the  principles 
and  how  little  the  attainment  of  the  end  depends  upon  the  ex- 
tent of  the  helps  alone. 

It  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  make  a  distinction  between  Catholic  and  Prot- 
estant editions,  since  theologians  and  critics  of  the  fonner  Church  have  been 
able  to  advance  this  department  of  science  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  some 
Protestants,  or  have  shown  no  hesitation  in  appropriating  to  themselves  what 
has  been  won  in  the  other  communion.  No  doubt  for  many  Catholics  the 
text  approved  by  the  Roman  see  (Compluteusian  and  Erasmus),  whose  very 
diversity,  however,  is  of  itself  a  charter  for  critical  research,  may  have  a 
certain  higher  authority,  but  they  do  not  appear  to  have  attained  to  that  def- 
erence for  those  older  (and  in  many  respects  better)  texts  which  is  usual  in 
Protestant  countries  and  schools  for  the  Elzevir.  —  For  simple  reprints  of 
Elzevir,  Mill,  and  other  favorite  forms  of  the  so-called  Textus  Receptus,  see 
above  in  the  apjiropriate  sections. 

I.  Editions  independent  of  Tischendorf,  and  returning  exclusively  to 
older  recensions,  without  regard  to  modern  criticism  :  — 

(1.)  Fues,  Tubingen,  1821,  by  P.  A.  Gratz  (Prof,  at  Tubingen,  afterward 
at  Bonn),  a  simple  and  faithful  reprint  of  the  Compluteusian  text  (even  with 
the  typographical  errors),  together  with  the  Vulgate  and  the  readings  of 
Stephens,  Griesbach,  and  Matthsei  in  the  margin.  The  Apocalypse  is  also 
appended  in  full  in  Stephens'  recension.  —  Repeated,  Kupferberg,  Mayence, 
1827  (new  title-page,  1851),  but  without  the  above  critical  additions,  and  in 
place  of  them  a  selection  of  variants  from  MSS.,  with  indication  of  their  rel- 
ative critical  value. 

(2.)  Fues,  Tiibiugen,  1827,  by  Leander  van  Ess,  with  the  Vulgate  ;  con- 
structs a  peculiar  text  from  the  Compluteusian  and  Erasmus,  as  the  two  edi- 
tions approved  by  Leo  X.  (with  marginal  readmgs  from  Stephens,  Griesbach, 
and  Matthrei).  This  text  is  a  good  one  so  far  as  it  could  be  with  these  aids. 
Of  course  where  the  Compluteusian  and  Erasmus  agree  there  was  nothing  to 
change  upon  this  principle.     Cf.  Gieseler,  in  the  Studien,  1828,  II.  405. 

II.  Editions  which  have  come  under  the  influence  of  various  modern  re- 
censions :  — 

(1.)  The  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  by  J.  Gehringer,  Fues,  Tiib.  1842, 
4°,  has  a  mixed  text,  from  the  Compluteusian,  Elzevir,  and  Griesbach,  the 
first  two  predominating  ;  it  has  also  a  very  small  number  of  readings  from 
Scholz,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf. 

(2.)  On  the  basis  of  Knapp  :  the  two  editions  prepared  by  C.  G.  W. 
Theile  (Prof,  at  Leipzig,  f  1854)  for  B.  Tauchnitz,  Leipzig,  one  Greek  alone 
(first  the  Gospels  only,  1842,  then  complete)  1844  (new  title-page,  1848, 
1850,  1852,  1854,  1856, 1858, 1865),  and  one  with  Luther,  1852;  both  with  the 
readings  of  the  best  recensions  and  all  sorts  of  other  additions.  They  very 
often  abandon  Knapp,  mostly  for  Lachmann  (almost  solely  in  passages  where 
Tischendorf's  first  edition  also  agrees),  elsewhere  either  for  Elzevir  or  for 
new  brackets.  The  two  editions  only  differ  in  a  few  passages,  in  which  the 
second  usually  goes  back  to  Knapp  or  Elzevir.  Reprinted  from  the  second 
edition,  with  the  Vulgate,  without  statement  of  sources,  Tauchnitz,  L.  1854 
(1862). 

(3.)  A  wholly  different  recension  is  exhibited  in  Theile's  N.  T.  polygl., 
(with  Vulgate  and  Luther),  Velhagen  and  Klasing,  Bielef.,  1846,  which 
abandons  Elzevir  but  very  seldom,  mostly  in  favor  of  Lachmann.  There  are 
also  copies  of  a  later  date,  1849,  1854,  and  others,  1855  and  1858,  with  the 


442  HISTORY   OF   THE  PRINTED   TEXT. 

English  version  addetl.  —  This  text  repeated,  Liesching,  Stuttg.  1853,  with 
Luther.     (Bible  Insitution.) 

(4.)  From  Griesbach's  recension  of  1805  :  the  so-called  fourth  edition  of 
Schott  (§  ■ll'i),  Barth,  L.  1839,  completed  by  L.  F.  O.  Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Prof,  at  Jena  (f  1843).  But  it  often  abandons  Griesbach,  altogether  or  at 
least  b}'  bracketing,  mostly  for  Lachmanu,  seldom  for  Elzevir,  sometimes 
for  emendations  peculiar  to  itself.  The  text  in  Schott's  uncompleted  Com- 
mentary on  the  Epistles  (Thess.,  Gal.,  L.  1834)  is  made  up  in  the  same  way. 
—  I'rom  Schulz'  edition  of  1827:  the  Harmony  of  R.  Anger  (Prof,  at 
Leipzig),  Gebhard  and  Reisland,  L.  1852  (printed  by  Tauchnitz),  frequently 
abandons  Griesbach,  very  seldom  for  Elzevir  or  new  readings,  mostly  for 
Laclimann  and  Tischendorf,  at  least  by  brackets. 

(5.)  Comiected  with  Lachmann  :  the  text  of  the  Epistles  commented  upon 
by  L.  I.  Riickert  (§  593  ;  Eph.,  1834  ;  Cor.,  1836  f.,  Ktihler,  L.).—  The  Har- 
mony of  the  Four  Gospels  by  J.  H.  Friedlieb  (Prof,  at  Breslau),  Aderholz, 
Bresl.  1847.  Yet  it  differs  in  many  places,  merely  indicating  many  of 
Lachmann's  changes  by  brackets,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  doing  away  with 
Lachmami's  brackets,  partly  by  acceptance  and  partly  by  erasure  ;  in  many 
cases,  also,  it  goes  back  to  older  readings  (mostly  Griesbach's),  and  has 
some  peculiar  to  itself.  New  revised  edition,  Manz,  Regsb.,  1869.  —  The 
N.  T.  of  F.  X.  Reithmayr  (Prof,  at  Munich),  Weiss,  Munich,  1847,  with 
the  Vulgate,  takes  for  its  basis  in  the  Gospels  Lachmann's  first  edition,  in 
the  rest  the  second,  but  in  many  cases  indicates  Lachmann's  omissions  and 
additions  by  brackets,  and  in  others  very  frequently  abandons  him  altogether, 
mostly  for  Griesbach  ;  among  these  cases  in  particular  are  many  in  which  it 
coincides  with  the  text  constructed  by  Tischendorf  after  the  Vulgate  (which 
often  agrees  with  Lachmann  also).  Complutensian  readings  and  emenda- 
tions peculiar  to  itself  also  occur. 

419.  Down  to  the  time  of  Mill  and  Mace  we  had  to  mention 
more  prominently  in  this  portion  of  our  history,  in  so  far  at 
least  as  the  object  was  to  give  an  account  of  the  earnest  and 
effective  advancement  of  science,  non-German  names.  From 
that  time  siie  sought  a  new  fatherland,  where  for  the  first  time 
she  was  truly  at  home,  and  has  grown  great.  Yet  she  has  not 
been  altogether  unknown  in  other  lands.  Theological  preju- 
dice and  the  spirit  of  the  times  and  of  the  churches,  directed 
toward  practical  life,  have  not  only  prevented  a  similar  occupa- 
tion in  those  countries  themselves  with  such  recondite  matters 
as  the  Apparatus  Criticus  and  variants,  but  they  have  also 
been  willing  to  listen  to  but  little  of  what  the  Germans  have 
to  say  of  them.  Holland  and  Switzei'land  supply  themselves 
mostly  at  the  rich  market  of  their  neighbor.  In  the  Catholic 
Church  there  is  little  demand  for  the  Greek  text.  France  is 
not  altogether  inactive,  though  of  course  witliout  aid  from  the 
priests  and  without  gain  for  the  cause.  The  Reformed  in  that 
country  prefer  to  obtain  what  they  need  from  England.  Tliere, 
however,  theology  is  still,  in  a  measure,  at  the  stage  in  which 
variants  may  endanger  salvation.  Yet  some  advance  has  been 
made  toward  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  matter,  and  the 
standai-d  writers  of  criticism  have  here  and  there  obtained  a 
blank  space  beneath  the  text.    Were  it  enough  to  look  sim- 


EDITIONS   IN   OTHER   COUNTRIES.  443 

ply  at  the  number  of  editions  and  their  neatness  of  form,  Eng- 
land should  doubtless  stand  at  the  head. 

In  tliis  section  I  make  no  claim  to  completeness.  The  editions  are  no- 
where all  catalogued,  and  in  the  lack  of  regular  intercourse  in  the  book 
trade  I  know  only  what  has  happened  to  come  into  my  own  hands.  Libra- 
ries contain  almost  nothing  at  all  of  what  belongs  here,  and  the  only  bibli- 
ographical catalogue  known  tome  (W.  T.  Lowndes,  The  Bibliographer's  Man- 
ual, 1834,  Vol.  III.,  s.  V.  Testament)  is  already  too  old,  superficial,  and  for 
scientific  purposes  altogether  useless.  We  place  in  this  section  only  those 
texts  which  were  not  to  be  mentioned  above  as  mere  repetitions  of  older  re- 
censions (§  406  ;  also  §§  403,  412,  414,  415). 

In  France  no  Greek  N.  T.  had  been  printed  since  1722,  when  J.  B.  Gail, 
Prof,  of  Greek  Literature  at  Paris,  had  at  least  the  Gospels  printed  for  the 
Lyceums  (the  episcopal  seminaries  probably  did  not  use  even  these),  Delelain, 
Par.  1812,  1814,  1820,  in  the  last  the  Acts  also.  Je  fus  informe  qu'il  n'ex- 
istait  pas  a  Paris  un  seal  exeniplaire  du  N.  T.  Je  mis  aussitut  la  main  a 
Voeuvre.  Non  tarn  electus  (truly  !  let  one  but  read  the  prefaces  and  intro- 
ductions) quam  derelictus,  malui  me  quam  neminem.  The  text,  as  the  author 
does  not  say,  is  Griesbach's  of  1805  with  some  few  Elzevir  readings.  —  From 
the  same  source,  with  somewhat  more  frequent  changes,  mostly  from  Elze- 
vir, and  in  part  with  reference  to  the  Vulgate,  is  the  handsome  N.  T.  of  the 
Hellenist  J.  F.  Boissonade,  Lefevre,  Paris,  printed  by  Eberart,  1824.  Lit- 
tle changed  from  this,  a  series  of  school  editions,  mostly  including  only  the 
historical  books,  and  these  singly,  Delalain,  P.  1827  and  freq.  Also  entire, 
1830  :  designed  throughout  only  for  boys,  as  those  who  alone  needed  it.  — 
Belin,  P.,  by  E.  Lefranc,  sine  anno.  —  Further  examples  of  this  class  are 
unnecessary.  —  The  Orientalist  Brosset  prepared  for  Didot,  1831  (new  title- 
page,  1837),  an  edition  which  honorably  acknowledges  Griesbach,  whose 
text  is  only  changed  in  a  few  places,  professedly  according  to  the  Georgian 
version  (!),  i.  e.,  according  to  Elzevir.  For  the  editions  of  Tischendorf  pub- 
lished by  Didot,  see  §  417.  —  A  handsome  miniature  edition,  ed.  Timothee 
and  DaroUes,  Toulouse,  1840,  is  closely  related  to  Boissonade. 

A.  Rilliet,  of  Geneva,  applied  the  most  recent  critical  principles,  first,  by 
way  of  example,  in  an  edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  with  com- 
mentary (G.  Be'roud,  1841),  afterward  in  a  complete  French  version. 

From  Italy  I  know  but  one  edition,  Typog.  Semin.,  Padua,  1820,  which  is 
only  slightly  different  from  those  mentioned  in  §  406,  yet  not  uninfluenced 
by  "Griesbach.  Editions  are  now  prepared  in  Venice  for  Jesuit  schools,  of 
which,  however,  only  one,  1847  (Elzevir),  is  known  to  me,  in  which  likewise 
Stephens  and  Elzevir  reading-s  are  mingled.  More  frequent  there  are  edi- 
tions of  beautiful  lectionaries  for  public  use,  of  which  a  splendidly  gotten  up 
copy,  1840,  f ol.,  lies  before  me.  —  Here  may  also  be  mentioned  the  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels  by  F.  X.  Patrizzi,  Herder,  Freib.  1853,  4°,  with  an  Elzevir- 
Griesbach  text. 

From  Holland  I  know  but  one  edition,  Luchtmans,  Leyd.  1809,  by  H.  A. 
Aitton,  in  which  Griesbach's  text  of  1805  is  changed  in  the  dogmatically 
important  passages  according  to  Elzevir,  a  critical  proceeding  for  the  recon- 
ciliation of  faith  and  science  well  received,  particularly  in  England.  Sub- 
stantially repeated  in  a  series  of  Glasgow  editions  by  various  publishers, 
1817,  1822,  1830,  1832,  1836  (and  freq.)  ;  Hurst,  Lond.  1834  ;  Parker, 
Lond.  1838. 

Switzerland  has  furnished  but  one  edition,  Bonnant,  Geneva,  1813,  by  F. 
Gaillard  (new  title-page,  Rusand,  Lyons,  1821),  which  received  perhaps 
about  one  half  of  Griesbach's  readings  into  the  Elzevir  text. 

Of  Protestant  countries  England  prints  by  far  the  most  editions,  mostly 
commercial  enterprises   and   school  editions  devoid  of   all  scientific  value. 


444  HISTORY   OF   THE  PRINTED    TEXT. 

Beside  the  numerous  editions  with  pure  Elzevir  or  mixed  Elzevir  and 
Stephens  text  (§  400),  some  peculiar  recensions  have  also  appeared  there  in 
modern  times. 

1.  The  Gospels,  by  Jos.  White,  CoUingwood,  Oxf.  1798,  in  which,  upon 
the  basis  of  Griesbach's  criticism,  approved  additions  are  inserted  in  Origen's 
method,  with  asterisks,  suspected  glosses  distinguished  by  means  of  daggers, 
other  preferred  variants  placed  in  the  margm  of  the  common  text. 

2.  Editions  of  Adam  Dickinson  and  W.  Duncan,  Edinb.  1817  (1829,  1835, 
stereotyped,  perhaps  fi-eq.).  Text,  Elzevir  II.  with  single  Griesbach  readings 
and  bracketing  throughout  of  the  glosses  stricken  out  by  Griesbach. 

3.  Editions  of  Ed.  Valpy,  cum  notis  vamru?n,Valpy,  Loud.  1816, 1826, 1831, 
1836, 1853,  3  vols.  Bengel's  text,  improved  by  the  introduction  of  Griesbach 
readings,  mostly  commended  by  Beugel  himself  in  the  margin.  Wholly 
different  from  this,  a  frequently  printed  manual  edition,  Valpy,  Lond.  1824. 

4.  Editions  of  S.  T.  Bloomfield  :  (1.)  Larger,  with  fuller  notes,  for  older 
students,  Longman,  Loud.  1832, 2  vols.,  1836,  1839,  and  freq.  ;  also  reprinted, 
Perkins,  Boston,  1837. — (2.)  Smaller,  with  shorter  scholia,  for  begimiers,  5th 
ed.,  Lond.  1847,  and  freq.  The  text  in  the  two  is  not  precisely  the  same, 
but  is  substantially  a  mixture  of  Stephens  and  tlie  Complutensian,  chiefly  on 
the  authority  of  Scholz.  Also  independent  but  infelicitous  attempts  at 
emendation. 

5.  Edition  with  annotations  by  C.  Wordsworth,  Canon  of  Westminster, 
Livingston,  Lond.  1857,  4  vols.  4°.  A  mixed  text,  from  Griesbach,  Lach- 
mann,  and  Tischendorf,  but  sparing  the  dogmatically  important  passages. 
A  critical  edition  of  the  Apocalypse  by  W.  Kelly,  Lond.  1860,  agrees  stiU 
more  frequently  with  the  two  last-named  German  critics. 

6.  On  the  basis  of  wholly  independent  criticism,  which,  however,  substan- 
tially agrees  in  its  principles  with  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Muralt,  and 
Buttmann,  the  edition  of  S.  P.  Tregelles,  of  Plymouth,  with  rich  apparatus 
(Bagster,  Lond.  1857-1879,  small  4°).  Earlier,  in  1844,  the  Apocalypse  as  a 
specimen.  [The  Prolegomena,  with  Addenda  and  Corrigenda,  were  compiled 
and  edited  in  a  supplementary  volume  by  Dr.  Hort  and  A.  W.  Streane,  1879. 
See,  on  the  character  of  Tregelles  as  a  critic,  and  his  relation  to  Tischendorf, 
O.  von  Gebhardt,  in  his  article  Biheltext,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.,  new  ed.,  II. 
428  ff.;  Westcott  and  Hort,  Gk.  Test.,  11.  13  ;  Dr.  Hort's  notice  of  Tischen- 
dorf and  Tregelles  in  the  Journal  of  Philology,  March,  1858.] 

7.  Editions  of  H.  Alford,  Lond.  1849  ff.  (4th  ed.,  1860)  ;  also  reprinted, 
N.  Y,  1859  ff.  4  vols.,  with  commentary  ;  critically  very  dependent  and 
vacillating  between  the  authority  of  the  witnesses  and  subjective  judgment. 
["  In  the  fifth  edition  he  nearly  rewrote  the  text  and  digest,  chiefly  on  the 
basis  of  Tregelles  and  Tischendorf,  and  in  the  sixth  (1868)  he  collated  also 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  incorporated  its  readings."  Schaff,  Companion, 
p.  267.] 

[8.  Westcott  and  Hort  :  The  Neto  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek,  Camb. 
and  Lond.  1881,  2  vols.;  the  first  volume  containing  the  text,  the  second  the 
Introduction,  324  pages,  and  Appendix  (Notes  on  Select  Readings,  140  pages, 
Notes  on  Orthography,  and  Quotations  from  the  O.  T.,  which  are  distin- 
guished by  uncial  type  in  the  text,  pp.  141-188).  Both  volumes  republished, 
from  duplicate  English  plates,  N.  Y.,  Harpers,  1881.  —  By  the  same  firm, 
a  convenient  diglot  edition,  containing  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Text 
and  the  English  Revised  Version  on  opposite  pages  :  The  Revised  Greek- 
English  New  Testament,  N.  Y.  1882.  "  The  Greek  Testament  of  Westcott 
and  Hort  presents  the  oldest  and  purest  text  which  can  be  attained  witli  the 
means  of  information  at  the  command  of  the  present  generation."  Schaff, 
Companion,  p.  269.] 

[9.  F.  H.  A.  Scrivener,  Prebendary  of  Exeter,  The  New  Testament  in  the 
Original  Greek,  according  to  the  Text  followed  in  the  Authorized  Version,  together 


SUMMARY.  445 

with  the  Variations  adopted  in  the  Revised  Version,  Camb.  1881.  The  readings 
adopted  by  the  Revisers  are  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  and  the  displaced 
readings  of  the  text  are  indicated  by  heavier  type.] 

[10.  Dr.  E.  Palmer,  Archdeacon  of  Oxford,  H  KAINH  AIA0HKH.  The 
Greek  Testament,  with  the  Readings  adopted  by  the  Revise)-s  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  Oxf.  1881.  Presents  the  Greek  text  of  the  Revisers,  with  the 
discarded  readings  of  the  textus  receptus  (Stephens,  1550)  and  of  the  version 
of  1811  in  foot-notes.] 

[The  University  presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  have  also  published 
The  Parallel  New  Testament,  Greek  and  English,  containing  the  Authorized 
Version,  the  Revised  Version,  the  Revised  Greek  Text,  and  the  readings  dis- 
placed by  the  Revisers,  in  parallel  columns,  with  space  for  manuscript  notes, 
Nov.  1882.] 

In  the  above  (§§  399-419)  all  the  editions  are  catalogued  which  I  myself 
possess  or  have  had  opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with  otherwise.  My 
Bibliotheca  edd.  N.  T.  gr.  contains  in  addition,  in  ch.  25,  a  small  number 
which  I  have  not  been  able  to  look  into,  and  in  ch.  2G  some  others  about 
whose  existence  I  am  in  doubt.  Beside  these,  some  may  have  appeared  in 
recent  years  in  England  and  America  which  are  as  yet  unknown  to  me. 
These  deficiencies  are  probably  not  of  importance  for  the  history  of  the  text. 
[This  list  of  Reuss  supplemented  and  brought  down  to  1882  by  Prof.  Isaac 
H.  Hall,  and  printed  in  Schaff,  Companion,  p.  497  flf.  See  also  Prof.  Hall's 
article.  The  Greek  Testament  as  published  in  A^nerica,  in  the  Trans.  Amer. 
Philol.  Assoc,  Vol.  XIII.  1882  ;  also  published  separately,  in  pamphlet  form, 
Critical  Bibliography  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  as  published  in  America, 
Phila.  1883.] 

420.  Thus  the  History  of  the  Text  has  also  divided  itself  into 
two  periods,  marked  off  by  the  nature  of  the  subject,  before 
which,  representing  the  prepai'atory  epoch,  came  the  description 
of  the  autographs.  The  first  period  embraced  the  history  of  the 
written  text,  both  as  to  its  external  form  and  its  essential  con- 
stitution. Here  were  to  be  traced  the  origin  and  propagation 
of  a  great  number  of  alterations,  some  designed,  others  acci- 
dental, which  have  disfigured  the  text,  from  which  the  Church 
was  unable  to  protect  herself  and  to  which  she  paid  no  at- 
tention. The  second  period  embraced  the  history  of  the  text 
since  the  invention  of  printing,  an  account  of  manifold  attempts 
to  restore  it  to  its  original  purity.  Although  the  conclusion  of 
this  history  is  that  the  end  aimed  at  has  not  been  reached  and 
never  will  be,  theology  may  comfort  itself  with  the  assurance 
that  no  truth  indispensable  or  important  to  it  is  affected,  and 
may  go  on  making  use  of  the  abiding  and  uncorrupted  contents 
of  Scripture  for  the  teaching  and  edification  of  the  Church. 
This,  which  is  its  essential  purpose,  constitutes  the  interest  of 
the  History  of  the  Versions. 


BOOK  FOURTH. 

HISTORY  OF    THE  DISSEMINATION  OF    THE   NEW  TESTA- 
MENT WRITINGS. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

421.  The  rapid  spread  of  Christianity  in  the  century  of  its 
origin  was  simply  the  work  of  the  apostolic  preacliing  and  of 
the  enthusiasm  whicli  tliis  must  have  aroused  among  people 
impoverished  in  faith  and  longing  for  spiritual  nourishment. 
Writing  and  books  had  no  share  in  this  most  marvelous  of 
all  conquests.  The  method  of  instruction  used  by  the  messen- 
gers of  the  Christian  faith  made  these  things  unnecessary,  and 
from  their  character  and  immediate  purpose  they  could  only 
be  of  use  where  the  new  ideas  had  already  taken  root. 

The  latter  fact  held  at  that  time  of  the  O.  T.  as  well  as  of  the  apostolic 
writings,  and  is  still  true  without  limitation  of  both.  Cf.  above,  §§30  if., 
284  ft'.  It  should  never  be  forgotten  in  this  connection  that  the  mightiest 
impulse  to  the  Gosjiel  came  at  the  beginning  from  a  source  which  rendered 
all  Scripture  unnecessary,  —  from  the  eschatological  expectations.  (§  36). 

422.  If  the  dissemination  of  the  apostolic  writings  was  not 
rapid  even  in  the  circles  where  they  could  be  immediately  un- 
derstood, it  must  have  been  much  less  so  without  these  circles. 
In  point  of  fact,  Christianity  made  its  way  into  lands  where 
the  Greek  language  was  not  known,  and  these  countries  were 
able  to  accept  and  retain  it  without  needing  its  written  records  ; 
nay,  even  without  knowing  them.  This  was  the  case  chiefly 
wherever  the  Semitic  dialects  were  spoken,  and  in  all  parts  of 
the  Roman  empire  where  the  native  languages  had  disappeared 
from  the  cities  and  fled  to  the  villages  and  mountains. 

Irenfeus,  Adv.  Hcer.,  III.  4,  p.  178,  still  speaks  of  many  barbarous  peoples 
upon  whose  hearts  tlie  faith  of  Christ  had  been  written  without  paper  and 
ink.  Pantaenus  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  V.  10)  found  among  the  Indians  (in  Yemen  ?  ) 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  the  original,  i.  e.,  certainly  not  a  canonical  text. 

With  respect  to  the  state  of  things  in  Latin  countries,  cf.  also  §  49.  The 
longer  continuance  of  heathenism  outside  the  cities  (paganism)  is  not  to  be 
attributed  to  the  lack  of  versions,  but  to  the  general  conditions  of  religious 
culture,  and  to  the  custom  of  the  Christian  missionaries  of  beginning  in  the 
cities. 

Critical  doubts  as  to  the  completeness  of  certain  of  the  oldest  versions  will 
be  considered  below. 


ECCLESIASTICAL   CHARACTER.  447 

423.  Just  as  the  more  general  dissemination  of  the  New 
Testament  books  was  accomplished  only  by  the  introduction  of 
public  church  readings,  so  also  the  versions  arose  only  in  con- 
sequence of  this  custom  becoming  a  necessity.  And  since  the 
most  immediate  effect  of  this  custom  was  the  rise  of  the  canon, 
it  might  be  expected  —  an  expectation  which  appears  to  be 
confirmed  by  the  history  —  that  the  versions  would  not  be  con- 
cerned with  single  writings,  but  would  have  for  their  subject- 
matter  more  or  less  complete  collections.  The  versions  are  not 
older  than  the  canon,  and  since,  at  the  time  of  the  formation 
of  the  latter,  the  two  collections,  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New,  were  placed  on  the  same  level,  both  theologically  and  ec- 
clesiastically, it  may  be  further  said  that  the  Christian  versions 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  a  rule,  include  both  from  the  beginning. 

Even  of  the  O.  T.,  aside  from  the  Chaldee  paraphrases,  intended  for  Pal- 
estine and  the  Eastern  schools,  there  were  at  the  period  indicated  no  other 
translations  current  than  the  Greek. 

424.  Partly  in  consequence  of  this  custom,  partly  in  conse- 
quence of  the  general  state  of  popular  education  and  religious 
instruction,  it  came  about  that  all  the  ancient  versions  obtained 
a  more  or  less  official,  ecclesiastical  character,  either  immedi- 
ately upon  their  preparation  and  by  design,  or  by  the  power 
of  circumstances.  The  people  themselves  in  general  became 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  only  in  the  church,  as  formerly 
in  the  synagogue,  and  only  so  far  as  they  were  read  to  them 
publicly.  The  version  gradually  obtained  the  authority  of  the 
original,  and  the  latter  was  finally  forgotten,  and  often  suspi- 
ciously placed  below  the  version  even  by  priests  and  persons  of 
some  learning. 

That  in  the  better  times  of  tlie  Church,  especially  the  Greek,  the  laity  also 
read  the  Bible  privately,  cannot  be  denied  in  view  of  the  testimony  of  Chrys- 
ostom  and  others.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  maintained  that  this  practice  was 
not  so  general  as  a  one-sided  polemic  interest  represents  it  (L.  van  Ess, 
GescUchte  der  Vulgata,  p.  6  E.  ;  Ussher  (§  287)  ;  Walch,  above,  §  289),  and 
that  it  was  in  any  case  an  evanescent  phenomenon.  Moreover,  this  solidar- 
ity in  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible  was  a  means  of  preserving  unity  of  faith. 
Cf.  also  §  287. 

425.  Considered  from  this  ecclesiastical  point  of  view,  the 
history  of  the  literature  of  these  versions  has  an  interest  alto- 
gether different  from  that  hitherto  presented,  when  they  were 
considered  solely  with  reference  to  the  needs  of  a  laborious 
verbal  criticism.  As  the  faith  bound  Christendom  together 
into  one  great  people,  so  the  languages  which  it  was  taught 
to  speak  divided  this  people  into  families,  and  with  every  new 
translation  another  member  detached  itself  from  the  centre 
previously  held  fast,  and  in  its  farther  progress  went  its  own 
way.     The  language  of  the  Romans  had  become  the  ecclesias- 


448  HISTORY  OF   THE   VERSIONS. 

tical  as  well  as  the  political  language  of  the  whole  West,  and 
its  remaining  so  was  not  the  least  cause  of  the  stability  and 
inner  unity  of  the  Latin  Church.  In  the  East,  which  indeed 
never  grew  into  this  unity,  one  province  after  another  won  for 
itself,  together  with  the  biblical  books  rendered  into  its  own 
vernacular,  a  greater  independence;  unfortunately  breaking 
thereby,  in  many  cases,  the  last  thread  by  means  of  which  it 
might  have  drawn  spiritual  life  and  power  from  some  more 
favored  region. 

Beside  the  ordinary  introductory  manuals,  cf .  (especially  on  the  ancient 
versions)  C.  Kortholt,  De  variis  S.  S.  editionlhus,  Kil.  (IGliS)  168(3  ;  R. 
Simon,  Hist,  des  versions  du  iV.  T.,  Rott.  1690  ;  Brian  Walton,  Apparatus 
biblicus  (§  17)  ;  Le  Long  (§395)  ;  J.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliolheca  Grceca,  IV.; 
J.  G.  Hagemami,  Nachrichten  v.  d.  fiirnemsten  Ueberss.,  Br.  1750  ;  Walch, 
Bibl.  iheol.  selecta,  IV.  47  fE.  ;  Semler,  Vorbereitung  zur  Hermeneutik,  II.  ; 
Michaelis,  Tractatio  de  variis  lectionibus  N.  T.,  Hal.  1749  ;  Rosenmiiller, 
Handb.  der  Liter,  der  bibl.  Kritik,  II.,  III.  ;  Gesenius,  Art.  Bibeliibersetz- 
ungen,  in  the  Hall.  Encykl.  ;  Meyer,  Geschichte  der  Schrifterkldrung  (§  501) 
Lohnis,  Herm.  (§  595),  p.  310  ff.  ;  Griisse's  Literaturgesch.,  passim. 

On  tlie  ancient  Oriental  versions  cf.  also  especially  Hottinger,  Bibl.  orient 
talis,  Heidelb.  1658  ;  idem,  De  translationibus  bibl.  in  II.  vernaculas,  Tig. 
1662  ;  H.  Benzel,  De  antiquis  bibliorum  verss.,  Lond.  1733  ;  Du  Coutaut  de  la 
Molette,  Essai  sur  Vecriture  Sainte,  P.  1775. 

In  the  course  of  this  account  the  geographical  point  of  view,  in  connection 
with  those  otherwise  natural,  must  and  will  come  into  favorable  considera- 
tion in  the  arrangement  of  the  material. 

426.  Earliest  of  all  the  lands  near  the  birthplace  of  Chris- 
tianity, Syria  possessed  this  sign  and  pledge  of  national  Chris- 
tian civilization.  In  its  northern  and  eastern  cities  the  ver- 
nacular had  not  given  way  before  the  Greek  conquerors,  and  a 
native  government  made  Edessa  the  centre  of  a  Syriac  Chris- 
tian culture,  though  limited  in  extent.  Certainly  as  early  as 
the  third  century,  perhaps  even  somewhat  earlier,  the  Bible, 
the  Old  Testament  according  to  the  Hebrew  text,  was  read 
here  in  the  vernacular  ;  pious  ignorance  even  connected  the 
Apostles  and  their  helpers  with  the  translation,  and  it  be- 
came the  foundation  of  a  rich  and  long-flourishing  theological 
literature. 

Chronicles  of  Edessa,  from  the  Syriac  (in  Assemanus,  Bibl.  orient.,  I.). 
translated  in  Eichhorn's  Repert.,  I.  199  ff.  ;  T.  S.  Bayer,  Historia  osrhoena  et 
edessena,  St.  Pet.  1734. 

J.  S.  Assemanus,  Bibliotheca  orientalis  clementino-vaticana,  Rome,  1719  ff. 
4  vols.  fol.  ;  extracts  in  German  by  A.  F.  Pfeiffer,  Erl.  1776,  2  Pts.  Cf.  J. 
F.  Gaab,  in  the  Neue  Repert.,  III.  358  ;  A.  G.  Hoffmann,  in  Bertholdt's  Jour- 
nal, XIV.  225  ;  G.  Bickell,  Conspectus  rei  Syrorum  lit.,  Monast.  1871. 

Divergent  opinions  of  the  age  and  origin  of  the  Syriac  version  among  the 
earlier  critics,  e.  g.,  in  the  preface  to  Frost's  edition  ;  in  Ridley  (see  below), 
p.  283  ff.  ;  Michaelis,  Einl.,  I.  392.  Its  high  antiquity  is  shown  by  its  canon, 
Dy  its  original  text,  by  its  circulation  among  all  parties  of  the  Syrian  Church, 
by  the  early  rise  of  a  Syriac  theological  literature.     But  it  surely  does  not 


SYRIAC  —  PESHITO.  449 

go  back  far  beyond  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  The  mention  of  a 
Syriac  Gospel  at  the  time  of  Hegesippus  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  TV.  22)  refers  rather 
to  a  particular  writing  than  to  a  translation  (§  198).  The  Syrians  claim 
that  the  O.  T.  was  already  translated  in  great  part  in  the  time  of  Solomon  ; 
cf.  Gabriel  Sionita,  Prcef.  ad  Psalmos,  1625.  The  N.  T.  is  ascribed  to  an 
apostle,  Thaddseus,  or  Adjeus. 

Fragments  of  an  ancient  Syriac  translation  of  the  Gospels,  found  in  a  con- 
vent in  the  Nitrian  Desert  m  Egypt,  edited  by  W.  Cureton,  Lond.  1858,  are 
regarded  by  Ewald  (Jahrh.,  IX.  70  if.)  as  older  than  the  Peshito.  But  upon 
this  supposition  there  appears  to  be  no  explanation  of  the  circumstance  that 
late  readings  (glosses,  emendations)  occur  in  it,  which  would  compel  us  to 
infer  a  long  use  of  this  translation,  and  not  its  speedy  displacement  by  a 
better  and  more  authentic  one.  Small  additions  to  Cureton's  text,  from  a 
Berlin  MS.,  published  by  E.  Rodiger,  in  the  Monatsbericht  der  Berl.  Acad., 
July,  1872,  and  thence  by  W.  Wright,  London,  1872.  C.  Hermansen,  De  cod. 
evv.  syr.  a   W.  Cureton  edito,  Hafn.  1859. 

427.  The  whole  work  is  carried  out,  in  all  its  parts,  with  the 
aid  of  happily  chosen  helps  and  upon  fixed  principles  which 
aim  at  fidelity  and  clearness,  even  if  it  did  not  come  from  a 
single  pen,  which  seems  to  be  at  least  supposable  for  the  New 
Testament.  The  Syrian  divines,  although  infected  like  their 
Greek  and  Latin  brethren  with  a  mania  for  insipid  allegoriz- 
ing, named  it  reverently  the  Peshito,  i.  g.,  the  simple,  sacrificing 
all  display  of  mystic  subtlety  to  the  plain  sense  of  the  words. 
Notwithstanding  its  limited  canon,  it  remained  the  common 
property  of  all  the  sects  into  which  the  Syrian  Church  soon 
divided,  although  polemic  found  in  it  here  and  there  single 
readings  which  gave  support  to  the  quarrels  of  the  schools. 

On  the  canon  of  the  Peshito  see  §  308.  Various  explanations  of  the  name. 
For  more  than  one  translator  of  the  N.  T.,  among  others,  Michaelis,  Hug, 
and  Bertholdt. 

That  it  was  translated  directly  from  the  Greek  text  does  not  need  to  be 
proved  from  the  retention  of  Greek  words  here  and  there  (which,  in  view  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Syriac  language  at  that  time,  does  not  prove  so  much), 
nor  from  the  interchange  of  them,  since  no  other  source  is  conceivable.  A 
use  by  the  translators  of  the  so-called  Itala  (according  to  Bengel)  is  too  re- 
mote. Nor  can  later  alterations  and  interpolations  (according  to  Griesbach) 
be  pointed  out  with  certainty. 

Its  critical  and  exegetical  value  :  Mill,  Prolegg.,  1237;  F.  E.  Boysen, 
Krit.  Erlduterung  des  Textes  des  JV.  T.  aus  der  syrischen  Uehers.,  1751  ff., 
with  preface  by  J.  B.  Carpzov  ;  G.  B.  Winer,  De  usu  versionis  syriace  N.  T. 
caute  instituendo,  Erl.,  1823  ;  Reusch,  Syrus  interpres  cumfonte  N.  T.  grreco 
collatus,  L.  1741  ;  M.  Weber,  De  usu  vers.  syr.  N.  T.  hermeneutico,  L.  1778  ; 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Curce  in  vers.  syr.  Actuum  apost.,  Gott.  1755  ;  J.  Perles, 
Meletemata  peschitthoniana,  Vrat.  1859.  —  Griesbach  estimated  its  critical 
value  lightly,  because  he  regarded  it  as  having  been  often  revised  according 
to  Greek  MSS. 

The  distinction  of  Maronite  and  Nestorian  MSS.  concerns  chiefly  the  char- 
acter, orthography,  division  of  cliapters,  and  order  of  books;  whether  pecul- 
iar readings  of  dogmatic  significance  are  to  be  found  in  the  latter  is  disputed, 
and  doubtless  rather  assumed  than  proved. 

Editions  of  the  N.  T.  :  by  Moses  v.  Marden  and  A.  v.  Widmannstadt, 
Vienna,  1555,  2  vols.  4°  (cf.  Muller,  Symbola  syr.,  p.  29  f.  ;  Iliit,  Or.  Bibl^ 
29 


450  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

II.  260  ;  IV.  317  ;  V.  25  ;  and  J.  C.  Beck,  Edd.  principes  N.  T.  syr.,  Basle, 
1776)  ;  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  1571,  and  thence  in  the  Paris,  1630,  and 
the  London,  1657  ;  by  M.  Trost,  Cothen,  1622,  4°  ;  by  A.  Gutbier,  Ilamb. 
1664,  8°  (often  repeated,  with  changes,  see  Rosenmiiller,  Handh.,  III.  116)  ; 
by  J.  Lensden  and  C.  Schaaf,  Leyd.  1709,  4°  ;  by  the  English  Bible  Society, 
Lond.  1816, 4°.  Also  a  series  of  editions  with  Hebrew  letters,  and  now  and 
then  single  books  as  specimens.  On  its  relative  completeness,  see  the  fol- 
lowing section,  and  in  general  Le  Long,  I.  104  ;  Masch,  II.  1,  p.  511  ;  Hirt, 
Or.  Bi-hl.,  II.  493  and  passim  ;  Schaaf's  preface  ;  Brnns  in  Eichhorn's  Re- 
pert.,  XV.,  XVI.  —An  English  translation  by  J.  Murdock,  N.  Y.  1851. 

For  the  sake  of  completeness,  it  may  be  said  that  in  the  O.  T.  the  addi- 
tions of  the  Greek  Bible  are  appended  and  in  many  MSS.  incorporated,  and 
that  in  particular  books,  for  example  the  Psalms,  the  influence  of  the  Greek 
text  may  be  clearly  pointed  out.  Both  of  which  facts  show  that  one  ecclesi- 
astical province  could  not  maintain  a  complete  independence  of  the  theologi- 
cal or  liturgical  customs  prevalent  in  the  rest. 

Editions  of  the  O.  T.  in  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglots,  in  the  latter 
with  the  Apocrypha  ;  best,  by  S.  Lee,  Lond.  1823,  4° ;  the  Pentateuch  by  G.  W. 
Kirsch,  L.  1787,  4°  ;  the  Psalms  by  T.  Erpenius,  Leyd.  1625  ;  G.  Sionita,  P. 
1625  ;  J.  A.  Dathe,  Halle,  1768  ;  the  apocryphal  books  by  P.  A.  de  Lagarde, 
L.  1861.     Many  single  portions  in  chrestomathies. 

[Best  European  editions  those  of  Lee,  published  by  the  British  and  For- 
eign Bible  Society,  and  Greenfield,  published  by  Bagster,  in  the  Polyglot 
and  separately.  Better  still  that  of  Dr.  Justus  Perkins,  Urumiah,  Persia, 
1841,  reprinted  N.  Y.  1874,  by  the  Am.  Bible  Society,  in  Nestorian  type. 
Schaaf's  Lexicon  Syriacum  Concordantiale,  published  as  a  companion  volume 
to  Schaaf  and  Leusden's  edition,  mentioned  above,  is  a  valuable  aid  to  the 
student.     (Schaff's  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  153  f.)] 

Cf.  in  general,  E.  Rodiger,  Art.  Peschito  in  the  Halle  Encykl.  On  the  O. 
T.  :  L.  Hirzel  (on  the  Pentateuch),  1825  ;  G.  L.  Spohn  (Isaiah),  1785  f.  ; 
C.  A.  Credner  (the  Minor  Prophets),  1827  ;  J.  A.  Dathe  (the  Proverbs), 
1764,  and  other  critical  monographs.  On  the  N.  T.  :  G.  E.  Voigt,  De  ver- 
sione  syriaca,  Jena,  1670  ;  J.  C.  Harenberg,  De  antiqua  versione  syriaca  (Bibl. 
Brem.,  VII.  480)  ;  J.  E.  Gerhard,  Diss,  ad  N.  T.  syr.,  in  Menthen's  Thesau- 
rus, II.  43  ;  especially  J.  Wichelhaus,  De  N.  T.  vers.  syr.  antiqua,  Halle, 
1850. 

What  has  been  called  the  Karkaphentian  version,  at  least  so  far  as  the  ex- 
tant MSS.  are  concerned,  is  nothing  but  a  collection  of  readings  and  critical 
(even  merely  orthographic)  notes  on  particular  passages  of  the  Peshito  of 
the  O.  and  N.  T.,  though  having  a  peculiar  order  of  the  books  (Scholz,  I. 
521),  or  a  recension  confining  itself  to  such  matters  ;  cf.  especially  Wise- 
man, Hor(B  syr.,  I.  147  £E.  ;  Martin,  in  the  Journal  asiatique,  1869,  6th  series, 
Vol.  XIV. 

For  textual  criticism  cf.  also  the  essays  of  G.  H.  Bernstein  in  the  Deutsche 
Morgenl.  Zeitschrift,  1849,  p.  385  ff.,  and  several  in  tlie  sixth  volume  of  the 
London  Polyglot  ;  and  in  general  the  editions  provided  with  apparatus  ; 
also  M.  H.  Reinhard,  De  vers.  syr.  N.  T.,  Vit.  1728  ;  L.  G.  Jahn,  Ohss.  in 
vers.  N.  T.  syr.,  Vit.  1756. 

428.  The  disputatious  spirit  of  the  later  theologians  could  no 
longer  be  satisfied  with  a  translation  which,  instead  of  striving 
after  diplomatic  accuracy  in  the  rendering  of  words,  attempted 
the  part  of  an  interpreter  of  the  sense.  Therefore  a  zealous 
monophysite  bishop,  Philoxenus  of  Hierapolis,  had  prepared  by 
his  chor-bishop  Polycarp,  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
century,    a   new    translation  of    the  New    Testament,  whose 


SYRIAC  —  PHILOXENIAN.  451 

superiority  was  to  consist  in  precisely  that  literalness  wliicli 
was  wanting  in  the  older  version.  It  seems  not  to  have  been 
designed,  however,  for  use  in  the  churches,  as  may  be  inferred 
from  the  critical  additions  and  even  from  the  extended  canon. 
This  Philoxenian  version  was  brought  to  a  still  higher  degree 
of  scrupulous,  literal,  and  consequently  unidiomatic  accuracy 
by  a  monk,  Thomas  of  Heraclea,  at  Alexandria,  in  the  year 
616. 

The  four  smaller  Catholic  Epistles  edited  by  Edw.  Pococke  from  an  Ox- 
ford MS.  Leyd.  1630,  4°,  are  said  to  belong  to  Polycarp's  work  ;  see  Eich- 
horn,  Einl.,  IV.  440  ;  but  others  deny  it.  The  rest  was  thought  to  be  lost. 
Yet  Bernstein  (see  below)  believes  he  has  discovered  the  Gospels  in  a  Ro- 
man MS.  {Cod.  angelicus).  To  his  work  also  belonged  a  Psalter  after  the 
genuine  Christian  mode,  of  which  scarcely  any  trace  has  been  preserved. 

To  the  recension  of  Thomas  (the  so-called  Harclean,  from  Heraclea)  is 
said  to  belong  the  Apocalypse  printed  by  L.  de  Dieu,  Leyd.  1627,  4°,  from  a 
Leyden  MS.  See  Eichhoi-n,  I.  c,  458.  Yet  there  is  great  difference  of 
opinion  on  the  matter.  The  editions  of  the  Peshito  have  been  supple- 
mented by  means  of  both  these  writings  since  their  discovery. 

The  whole  Harclean  version,  without  the  Apocalypse,  was  edited  (from 
Oxford  MSS.)  by  Jos.  White,  Oxf.  1778-1803,  4  vols.  4°  ;  the  Gospel  of 
John  by  G.  H.  Bernstein,  L.  1853,  8°  (from  a  Vatican  MS.). 

G.  H.  Bernstein,  De  charklensi  N.  T.  translatione  syriaca,  Vrat.  (1837),  2d 
ed.  1854  ;  cf .  Storr,  in  Eichhorn's  Repert.,  Pt.  VII. ;  Michaelis,  Briefwechsel, 
Pt.  I.  ;  idem,  Or.  Bihl,  XVII.  122  ;  XVIII.  171  ;  H.  E.  G.  Panlus,  Cata- 
logus  MSS.  quibus  versio  N.  T.  philoxeniana  continetur,  Helmst.  1788.  The 
older  work  of  Polycarp  Adler  ( Verss.  syr.,  p.  52)  thinks  is  preserved  in  a 
Florentine  MS.  ;  Bernstein,  on  the  contrary,  points  to  a  MS.  in  the  Bihlio- 
theca  angelica  at  Rome. 

Critical  marks  and  marginal  glosses  in  the  MSS.  of  both  (?)  recensions, 
and  disputed  explanation  of  them.  To  judge  from  the  purpose  and  aids  of 
this  translation,  it  is  certainly  more  probable  that  the  former  refer  to  read- 
ings of  Greek  MSS.  than  to  those  of  the  Peshito,  all  the  more  since  most  of 
these  readings  can  still  be  confirmed  from  our  extant  MSS.  But  the  view 
that  the  signs  actually  passed  over  from  a  Greek  MS.  into  the  version  falls 
to  the  groimd  with  the  hypothesis  of  a  recension  of  the  Greek  text  by  Origen 
(§§  365,  367). 

429.  In  the  southern  part  of  Syria,  in  heavil}^  afflicted  Pal- 
estine, whose  ill-advised  churches  had  once  rejected  the  noblest 
branch  of  the  apostolic  literature,  the  people,  except  so  far  as 
they  spoke  Greek,  were  long  destitute  of  almost  all  means  of 
Christian  biblical  edification  in  this  form.  We  know  only  of 
a  so-called  Hebrew  Gospel,  which  was  different  from  the  ca- 
nonical. Later,  perhaps  shortly  before  the  invasion  of  the 
Arabs,  at  least  the  really  indispensable  portions,  the  current 
church  readings  from  the  generally  recognized  Gospels,  were 
translated  into  the  degenerate  Aramaic  dialect  of  the  country. 

Version,  language,  and  character  were  discovered  by  Adler  in  a  single 
MS.  at  Rome.  See  Michaelis,  Or.  Biblioth.,  XIX.  125  ;  Adler's  Reise,  p, 
119  ;  a  specimen  in  Adler's  Verss.  syr.,  p.  147,  and  in  Eichhorn,  Einl.,  TV. 
493  ;  Evangeliarium  hieros.  ex  cod.  vat.  syr.,  ed.  F.  Miniscalchij  Verona, 
1861,  4°. 


452  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

We  also  mention  here,  in  passing:  (1.)  the  Syriac  version  of  the  LXX. 
prepared  l>y  Bishop  Paul  of  Tela,  617,  after  the  recension  of  Origen  (the 
Hexapla)  ;  it  seems  not  only  to  be  related  to  the  Hai-cleaii  version  of  the  N. 
T.  chronologically,  but  to  be  akin  to  it  in  other  respects  also  ;  nearly  all  the 
historical  books  are  said  to  be  lost  (specimen  from  2  Kings  by  J.  G.  Hasse, 
1782  ;  Judges  and  Ruth,  ed.  T.  Roerdam,  Havn.  1859)  ;  the  other  canoni- 
cal books  have  been  partially  edited  :  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  by  M.  Norberg, 
1787  ;  Daniel  and  the  Psalms  by  C.  Bugati,  1788  and  1820  ;  the  rest  by  H. 
Middeldorpf,  1835.  Cf.  Eichhorn's  Repert,  III.,  VII.;  C.  a  Lengerke,  De  stu- 
dio I'M.  syr.,  p.  14  ff .  (2.)  The  revision  undertaken  about  704  by  Bishop  Jacob 
of  Edessa,  very  probably  on  the  basis  of  the  foregoing,  of  which  the  Pentateuch 
and  Daniel,  according  to  later  information  some  other  books  also  (Allgem. 
Lit.  Zeitung,  1846,  No.  204),  have  been  preserved  in  MSS.  Cf.  Eichhorn's 
Bihl,  II.  270  ;  VIII.  571  ;  Einl.  ins  A.  T.,  II.  156.  (3.)  Several  others, 
partly  problematical,  information  respecting  vi^hich  is  collected  in  Michaelis, 
I.  434;  Eichhorn,  Einl.  ins  A.  T.,  II.  214  £P.;  Zeitsclir.  der  deutschen  Morgenl. 
Gesellsch.,  1849,  p.  397.  On  the  fragments  of  the  Sj^riac  version  of  the  Gos- 
pels discovered  by  Cureton,  see  above,  §  426,  and  the  Heidelb.  Studien,  1858, 
p.  561. 

On  the  Syriac  versions  in  general,  see  A.  Midler,  De  syriads  utriusque  Test, 
verss.,  in  his  Symbh.,  p.  11  ff.  ;  G.  Ridley,  De  syriacarum  N.  T.  verss.  indole 
et  usu,  printed  in  Wetstein,  Libelli  crit.,  pp.  247-339;  G.  C.  Storr,  Ohss.  super 
N.  T.  versionihus  syrr.,  Stuttg.  1772  ;  J.  G.  C.  Adler,  N.  T.  versiones  syriacce 
.  .  .  denuo  examinatcc,  Hafn.  1789  ;  with  a  supplement,  1790.  [Tregelles,  in 
Smith's  Diet.,  IV.  pp.  3383  fif.  Am.  ed.  ;  Davidson,  Art.  Syriac  Versio?is,  in 
Kitto's  Cycl.  ofBibl.  Lit.'] 

430.  Not  much  later  tlian  Syria,  Egypt  also,  that  other 
cradle  of  ancient  culture,  obtained  a  translation  of  the  Bible  of 
her  own.  After  the  downfall  of  the  Ptolemies,  and  still  more 
after  the  beginning  of  the  Byzantine  empire,  although  not 
without  traces  of  the  long  bondage,  the  ancient  language  of  the 
people  rose  again,  and  with  it  soon,  though  gradually,  Chris- 
tianity also  rose  to  transient  dominion.  Retaining  the  Greek 
text,  but  at  the  same  time  providing  for  the  instruction  of  the 
people,  the  Ciiurch  read  the  sacred  books  to  them  in  both  lan- 
guages, and  in  different  dialects  in  the  different  provinces. 
But  of  this  less  splendid  period  of  its  history  also  only  incom- 
plete records  have  been  preserved. 

On  the  so-called  Coptic  language  and  literature  (the  name,  variously  in- 
terpreted, is  most  probably  etymologically  connected  with  AXyv-KTos,  and  al- 
ways signifies  Christian  Egypt  in  distinction  from  Pharaonic  (Chem),  Old 
Testament  (Mizram),  Macedonian  and  classic  in  general  (Alyvn-ros),  and 
modern  Arabic  (Misr) ;  see  E.  Quatremere,  Recherches  sur  la  langue  et  la 
litterature  de  VEgypte,  P.  1808. 

As  to  tlie  age  and  origin  of  the  Coptic  versions  of  the  Bible  nothing  cer- 
tain has  been  ascertained.  In  the  opinion  of  linguistic  and  historical  schol- 
ars, two  of  them  were,  already  in  existence  at  the  end  of  the  third  century. 
It  is  certain  that  in  the  following  century  the  Greek  language  was  almost 
unknown  even  among  priests,  still  more  among  monks.  And  among  the 
people,  outside  the  cities,  it  probably  never  had  been  very  well  known. 

The  custom  of  public  reading  in  two  languages  is  attested  by  still  extant 
Gr?eco-Coptic  MSS.,  beside  other  ways.  For  catalogue  of  MSS.  see  Engel- 
breth,  in  Haenlein's  Journal,  VI.  834 ;  Zoega,  in  the  Allg.  Lit.  Ztg.,  1821, 
III.  561. 


EGYPTIAN  — iETHIOPIC.  453 

Tlie  Upper  Egyptian  or  Thebaic,  called,  from  the  Arabic  name  of  the 
province,  the  Sahidic,  i.  e.,  Highland,  is  considered  the  oldest.  It  is  trans- 
lated from  the  Greek  in  the  O.  T.  as  well  as  in  the  New.  Only  fragments 
of  either  part  have  been  discovered  ;  of  the  N.  T.  very  brief  ones,  from 
Matthew  and  John,  by  J.  A.  Mingarelli,  Bol.  1785  ;  from  John,  by  A.  A. 
Georgi,  Rome,  1789  (§  392) ;  from  the  Epistles,  by  F.  Miinter,  etc.  ;  see  his 
Comm.  de  indole  N.  T.  versionis  sahidicce,  Hafn.  1789.  —  C.  G.  Woide,  in  the 
Appendi.x;  to  his  edition  of  Cod.  Alex.  (Oxf.  1799,  fol.),  collects  all  that  is 
extant,  in  some  parts  not  inconsiderable. 

Better  known  is  the  Lower  Egyptian  or  Memphitic,  which  is  for  this  rea- 
son often  called  simply  the  Coptic.  It  is  from  the  same  sources,  but  is  said 
to  be  somewhat  later,  which  may  at  least  be  easily  inferred  from  natural 
causes.  Of  the  O.  T.  the  Pentateuch  (Wilkins,  1731;  [A.  Fallet,  La  Ver- 
sion Cophte  du  Pent.,  Par.  1854]  ;  P.  de  Lagarde,  1867)  and  the  Psalms  have 
been  completely  edited,  the  latter  more  frequently,  best  by  L.  Ideler,  B, 
1837  ;  M.  G.  Schwarze,  L.  1843  ;  the  Prophets,  by  H.  Tattam,  Oxf.  1836 
(minor),  1852  (major) ;  Job,  by  H.  Tattam,  Loud.  1846  ;  the  N.  T.  entire 
by  D.  Wilkins,  Oxf.  1716,  4°  [also  by  H.  Tattam,  publ.  by  the  Soc.  for  Prom. 
Christ.  Knowledge,  1847-52]  ;  the  Gospels  by  M.  G.  Schwarze,  L.  1846,  4°; 
Epistles  and  Acts  by  P.  Bdtticher,  Halle,  1852.  —  Cf .  E.  Quatremere,  On 
the  Coptic  Prophets,  in  the  Notices  et  Extraits,  VIII.  ;  Baumgarteu,  Nachr., 
VI.  1. 

Fragments  are  preserved  of  a  third  version,  known  by  the  name  of  the 
Bashmurie,  whose  home  is  disputed.  Critics  consider  this  designation,  which 
points  to  the  eastern  mouths  of  the  Nile,  to  be  erroneous,  and  would  assign 
it  rather  to  the  western  oases.  Fragments  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  edited 
by  W.  F.  Engelbreth,  Hafn.  1811,  4°. 

An  unimportant  theological  literature,  chiefly  legendary  and  ascetic,  is 
connected  with  the  Coptic  Bible.  Cf.  in  general  La  Croze,  Thesaurus  epis- 
tolicus,  passim,  see  the  Index  ;  Michaelis,  Briefwechsel,  III.  43  ff.  ;  C.  G. 
Woide,  in  Cramer's  Beitrdge,  III.  ;  Georgi,  preface  to  his  edition  of  John, 
see  above  ;  F.  Miinter,  in  Eichhorn's  Bibl.,  IV.  ;  J.  L.  Hug,  in  Ersch  and 
Gruber's  Encykl.,  II.  37;  Masch,  II.  1,  p.  182  ;  also  A.  Kircher,  Prodromus 
coptus,  Rome,  1636  ;  J.  E.  Gerhardt,  Eccl.  coptica,  Jena,  1666  ;  C.  H.  Trom- 
ler,  Ahhildung  der  koptischen  Kirche,  Jena,  1749  ;  idem,  Bihliotheca  coptica, 
L.  1767.  The  Travels  of  Wansleb,  Du  Bernat,  Pococke,  Scholz,  and  others. 
Letronne,  Mate'riaux  pour  Vhist.  du  Christianisme  en  Egypte,  P.  1832.  [Tre- 
gelles,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  IV.  p.  3375.] 

431.  Bold  apostles  had  very  early  found  their  way  beyond 
these  two  oriental  mother-countries  to  more  distant  regions, 
where  Hellenic  culture  had  never  penetrated.  As  early  as  the 
fourth  century  they  carried  the  Gospel  up  the  Nile  to  fabled 
Ethiopia,  and  soon  gave  to  the  newly  founded  Church  all  the 
sacred  writings,  which  they  perhaps  did  not  adjust  to  the  for- 
eign speech  without  the  aid  of  Egyptian  interpretation.  Bnt, 
cut  oil  from  living  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  nowhere  bore  poorer  fruit ; 
and  now,  while  new  missionaries  are  going  thither  to  do  the 
work  a  second  time,  where  in  name  it  has  been  done  for  so 
long,  the  linguistic  scholar  is  occupied  in  reading  at  home  a 
mass  of  morbid  excrescences  of  neglected  Scripture  brought 
thence. 


454  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

The  ancient  Ethiopic  language  (Abyssinian,  i.  e.,  of  the  land  of  Habesh), 
called  by  the  natives  Gheez,  is  connected  with  the  South  Arabian  (Himyari- 
tic),  therefore  in  general  with  the  Semitic  family  of  languages  ;  but  it  long 
since  passed  away  as  a  living  language,  and  has  become  split  up  into  a  mul- 
titude of  more  or  less  corrupt  dialects. 

Legends  of  the  country  refer  the  acquaintance  of  the  people  with  revela- 
tion to  the  Queen  of  Sheba  (1  K.  x.)  or  to  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  (Acts  viii.), 
more  trustworthily  to  a  missionary  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century, 
Abba  Salama,  who  is  also  said  to  have  translated  the  Bible,  and  who  is  pos- 
sibly one  and  the  same  person  with  the  Frumentius  mentioned  by  the  Church 
Fathers.  Cf.  in  general  H.  Ludolf,  Historia  cethiopica,  Frankf.  1G81,  fob, 
III.  2  ;  idem,  Commentarius  ad  historiam  cethiopicam,  1691,  fol.  ;  M.  Veys- 
siere  de  la  Croze,  Histoire  du  Christianisme  d'Ethiopie  et  d'Armenie,  La  Haye, 
1739  ;  J.  C.  Dannhawer,  De  eccl.  cethiopica,  Arg.  1664  ;  J.  G.  Oertel,  The- 
ologia  ^thiopum,  Vit.  1746  ;  Geseniiis,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encykl.,  II. 
116. 

Opinions  are  divided  as  to  the  age  and  sources  of  this  version.  With  re- 
spect to  source,  the  question  is  between  the  Greek  and  the  Coptic,  though 
doubtless  the  former  has  more  in  its  favor  ;  and  the  date  cannot  be  earlier 
than  the  mission  of  Frumentius,  although  it  is  conceivable  that  the  Jews  liv- 
ing there  may  have  translated  their  sacred  writings  before  that  time.  The 
now  extant  Etliiopic  O.  T.  is  of  Christian  origin.  Cf.  also  B.  Dorn,  De  psal- 
terio  (Bthiopico,  L.  1825,  p.  2  ff. 

Of  the  O.  T.  the  Psalms  have  been  printed  frequently  :  first  at  Rome, 
1513  ;  later  by  Ludolf,  1701,  with  and  without  Latin  translation,  also  with 
the  Canticles  ;  the  latter  also  separately;  Ruth  and  some  of  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets (Joel,  Jonah,  Zephaniah,  Malachi)  by  J.  G.  Nissel,  1656  ff.  ;  the  N.  T., 
Rome,  1548,  2  vols.  4°  (cf.  Bibl.  Sacyana,  I.  720,  p.  408),  and  in  the  London 
Polyglot  (in  which  also  the  Psalms  and  Canticles),  in  both  cases  very  de- 
fectively, but  made  more  accessible  by  the  more  accurate  Latin  translation 
of  C.  A.  Bode,  Br.  1752  ff.  2  vols.  — Better  edition  :  London,  1827,  4°  [by 
T.  P.  Piatt,  for  the  British  and  For.  Bib.  Soc]  ;  also  the  Gospels  separately, 
in  1827,  and  the  Psalms  in  1815.  Earlier,  several  Epistles  (James,  John, 
Jude,  also  Arabic)  by  Nissel,  1654.  Catalogues  of  editions  in  Le  Long,  I. 
127;  Masch,  II.  1,  p.  140;  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl.,  IV.  471;  VIII.  473; 
Nachr.,  VI.  6  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Handh.,  III.  65,  142.  The  remaining  por- 
tions of  the  O.  T.  are  preserved  in  MS.  in  European  libraries.  —  A  beauti- 
ful edition  of  the  O.  T.  was  begun  in  1854  by  A.  Dillmann,  who  also  claims 
to  be  able  to  point  out  in  the  MSS.  different  recensions  of  the  text,  and  even 
traces  of  new  translations  of  certain  portions. 

On  the  pseudepigraphic  literature  of  the  Ethiopian  Church,  see  above, 
§326. 

Cf.  in  general  Mill,  Prolegg.,  1188  ;  Bode's  preface  to  his  Aithiopixche 
Fragmente  des  A.  T.,  1755;  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Preface  to  Bode's  Maithceus  ; 
Bruce's  Travels,  I.  ;  Isenberg's  Ahyssinien,  passim;  the  Travels  of  Combes, 
Gobat,  Katte,  and  others  ;  Hottinger,  Bibl.  orient.,  p.  318  ff.  [Potken,  Pref- 
ace to  the  Ethiopic  Psalter,  Rome,  1513  ;  T.  P.  Piatt,  MS.  Notes  made  in 
the  Collation  of  Ethiopic  MSS.,  and  Private  Letters  sent  to  Tregelles  ;  L.  A. 
Prevost,  MS.  Collation  of  the  Text  of  Piatt  with  the  Roman,  and  Translation 
of  Variations,  executed  for  Tregelles  ;  A.  Dillmann,  ^thiopische  Bibeliihersetz- 
ung,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl. ;  Tregelles,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  IV.  p.  3371.] 

432.  Syria  sent  her  missionaries  into  all  the  countries  along 
the  Euphrates  and  Tigris.  At  the  sources  of  these  rivers,  in 
Armenia,  first  arose  the  need  of  a  translation  which  could  be 
understood  by  the  people,  and  their  spiritual  guides  spared 


AEMENIAN— GEORGIAN.  455 

no  pains  to  furnish  thera  with  this  treasure.  Not  contenting 
themselves  with  the  Syriac  text,  they  obtained  a  Greek  Bible 
from  the  great  church  collection  at  Ephesus,  young  men  were 
sent  to  Alexandria  to  acquire  linguistic  knowledge,  and  so 
finally,  through  several  scholars,  Mesrob  at  their  head,  who 
was  obliged  to  invent  the  alphabet  for  it,  and  with  the  help  of 
the  Peshito,  the  Armenian  Bible  came  into  existence,  in  this 
case  also  the  beginning  of  a  native  literature. 

The  source  of  our  knowledge  of  this  history  (which  in  the  native  form  is 
very  legendary  and  obscure  ;  see  Petermann,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.,  Art. 
Mesrob)  is  Moses  Chorenensis,  who  was  himself  concerned  in  the  work  : 
Hist.  arm.  (ed.  W.  and  J.  Whiston,  Lond.  1736).  Cf.  La  Croze,  in  the  pre- 
ceding section.  J.  E.  Gerhard,  De  statu  Armenice  ecclesiastico,  Jena,  1665. 
Several  essays  in  the  Tiih.  Quartalschr.,  1835,  I.  ;  1846,  IV.  ;  Neumann, 
Geschichte  der  armen.  Liter.,  p.  37  ff.;  C.  N.  Pischon,  in  the  Berl.  Zeitschr., 
Dec.  1854. 

As  Mesrob's  (Miesrob's)  coadjutors  are  also  mentioned  the  Patriarch 
Isaac,  Joseph  (Palnensis),  and  Eznak  (Jo.  Ekelensis).  The  date  is  carried 
back  by  some  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  The  O.  T.  is  from  the 
LXX. 

Suspicion  of  alteration  to  accord  with  the  Vulgate  in  the  thirteenth  century 
(on  occasion  of  the  union  of  the  Armenian  Church  with  the  Latin),  and  in 
the  first  printed  edition,  prepared  in  Europe  in  1666,  proved  by  La  Croze, 
Thesaur.  epist.,  III.  3,  69  ;  II.  290  ;  denied  by  R.  Simon,  Hist,  des  versions, 
p.  196  f.  ;  Eichhorn,  Einl.,  V.  76  if.  —  Cf.  in  general  A.  Acoluthus,  Preface 
to  his  edition  of  the  Armenian  Obadiah,  1680  ;  Bredencamp,  in  Eichhorn's 
Bibl,  IV.  623. 

Catalogue  of  the  earlier  editions  in  Le  Long,  1. 136  ;  Baumgarten,  Handb., 
III.  189,  377  ;  Nachr.,  IX.  189  ;  Masch,  II.  1,  p.  169  ;  Rosenmuller,  III. 
78,  153.  Modern  editions  frequently  at  Venice  (San  Lazaro)  ;  see  Journal 
Asiat.,  III.  119  ;  VII.  64  ;  also  St.  Petersburg  and  Serampore,  1817.  Cf. 
§§  491,  495. 

[Best  edition  by  Zohrab,  N.  T.,  1789  ;  whole  Bible,  1805,  and  again  1816  ; 
now  published  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  See  Chas.  Rieu, 
MS.  Collation  of  the  Armenian  Text  of  Zohrab,  and  Translation  of  the  Various 
Readings,  made  for  Tregelles  ;  Tx'cgelles,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  IV.,  p.  3373.] 

433.  From  Armenia  Christianity  pressed  far  up  into  the 
valleys  of  the  Caucasus,  and  in  the  sixth  century  Georgia, 
the  ancient  Iberia,  the  chief  province  of  that  many-tongued 
land,  received  her  own  translation.  Its  earliest  history  has 
thus  far  remained  unknown  to  European  scholars,  and  its 
influence  upon  the  mental  development  of  this  distant  corner 
of  the  earth  cannot  as  yet  be  estimated,  since  it  is  but  very 
recently  that  war  and  tireless  zeal  in  research  have  made  this 
region  again  accessible. 

Of  the  Georgian  language  and  literature  one  may  learn  a  little  from  F.  C. 
Alter,  Ueber  georg.  Literatur,  Vienna,  1798  ;  more  from  Brosset's  essays  in  the 
Journal  Asiatique,  X.  351;  Nouveau  Journal,  I.  434  ;  II.  42. 

The  Georgian  (in  the  vernacular,  Grusinic)  version  of  the  Bible  was 
printed  at  Moscow  in  1743  ;  rarely  in  Europe.  It  is  acknowledged  to  have 
been  altered  or  interpolated  to  accord  with  the  Slavic.     See  Eichhorn,  Bibl., 


456  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

I.  153  ;  idem,  Asiatische  Sprachkunde,  p.  341.  In  our  times  it  has  been 
circulated  by  the  press  of  the  St.  Petersburg  Bible  Society,  in  two  characters, 
the  ecclesiastical  and  tlie  civil. 

434.  Whether  still  other  eastern  countries  obtained  in  this 
period,  together  with  the  Gospel,  the  means  of  hearing  it  pub- 
licly read  in  their  own  tongues,  is  unknown.  The  rhetorical 
effusions  of  Greek  pulpit  discourses  cannot  be  accepted  as 
historical  evidence.  And  even  if,  here  and  there,  in  a  dialect 
confined  within  comparatively  narrow  limits,  the  germ  of  a 
national  intellectual  development  had  been  implanted  in  a 
translation  of  the  Bible,  it  must  soon  have  been  stifled  by  the 
world-threatening  inroad  of  the  Arabic  nationality,  with  which 
came  in  an  epoch  of  important  change  for  the  subject  of  our 
history. 

Clirysostom  (c.  400),  Horn.  I.  in  Joann. :  '2vpoi  Kal  Al-yvmioi  koI  "l^Soi  kolL 
Hepffai  Kal  AldioTres  Kal  /xvpia  erepa  'iQvrj  (Is  tyjv  tavTtov  /xera^aWovTes  '/hwrrav  .  .  . 
e/j-adoy.  (Vol.  VIII.,  p.  10,  Moatf.)  Similarly,  Horn.  80  in  Matlh.  (Vol.  VII,, 
767),  though  here  not  necessarily  of  written  translation. 

Much  earlier  still,  Eusebius  (in  a  fragment  in  Grabe,  Spicil.  PP.,  II.  252), 
5to  Trjs  ToC  fvayy^Kiov  ypaKpTJs  Travrola  yAciTTT)  iWr)VLKr}  re  Kal  ^ap^ap'^  yara^KT)- 
Bela-fjs  els  i^aKovarov  Tracri  ro7s  iBveai  k.  t.  \.  Idem,  De  laiidibus  Constant., 
ch.  xvii.  5  :  ypatpas  .  .  .  Ka6'  oAijs  t^s  oiKoufievris  iravTula  yKwaari  fiap^apwv  re  koX 
kwi\vuiv  pi.irafia.\KojXfvas.  ■  .  . 

Theocloret,  De  nat.  horn.  serm.  5,  p.  555  .  .  .  fxere^KTiBr)  .  .  .  els  ird&as  rcks 
yKdrras  ah  anauTa  to  edvr]  /cexpTji/Tai.  Idem,  GrCBC.  affect.,  p.  837  ff.:  rj 
'E^paicoi/  (pitiuh  ov  ix6vov  els  r^v  'EAA.tjj/ojj'  fxere^A-qOr}  aWa  Kal  els  rr/v  'Paifxalcmv  Kal 
AlyvTriuiv  Kal  nepawi^  Kal  ^IvSwv  Kal  'Ap/xei/icoy  Kal  'SKu9!av  Kal  'S.avpofxarQv  Ka\ 
CvWrjIiSrjv  elireiv  eis  iraaas  ras  yXwnaas  als  awavra  ret  edvTj  KexpVf^^"^  StareXei. 
Anastasius  Sinaita,  Hodeg.,  ch.  xxii.  :  eV  rois  ypafxixacri  twv  o^'  ( 72,  i.  e.,  all) 
yXoiffauv  Kal  edvwv.  Jerome,  In  Ps.  86.  Other  less  definite  assertions  are 
quoted  by  Bianchini,  Prolegg.  ad  evang.  quadrupl.,  I.  78  ;  Bingham,  Origg. 
eccL,  V.  91. 

Even  the  Syrian  and  African  versions  owe  their  preservation  not  so  much 
to  native  care  as  to  European  thirst  for  knowledge. 

Altogether  undeserving  of  mention  (to  despatch  the  whole  matter  in  one 
word)  are  the  strange  conceits  of  later  times,  presented  as  history  ;  as  for 
example  an  Armenian  version  by  Chrysostom  (Sixt.  Senens.,  IV.,  p.  280), 
an  Illyrian  by  Jerome  (several  writei"s,  in  Leusden,  Phil.  hehr.  mixi.,  p.  71), 
finally  even  a  German,  for  which  the  Scythians  mentioned  in  Col.  iii.  11  are 
made  to  furnish  language  and  surety  (Ott  and  Breitinger,  in  Simler's  Samm- 
lung  von  Urkunden,  I.  2,  p.  385).  Scarcely  more  worthy  of  notice  is  the 
reference  of  Epiphanius  (Hcer.,  xxx.  3,  I.  127)  to  a  Hebrew  version  of  John 
and  Acts. 

435.  For  soon  after  the  first  quarter  of  the  seventli  century 
occurred  one  of  those  revolutions  not  uncommon  in  the  history 
of  Asia,  by  which  the  aspect  of  a  whole  continent  is  changed. 
In  this  case,  however,  it  was  no  ordinary  national  migration,  no 
common  expedition  of  conquest.  A  new  faith  was  rising,  with 
the  rapidity  of  a  hurricane,  upon  the  ruins  of  a  dead  heathen- 
ism, and  was  overflowing  also  the  distant  Christian  regions  of 
the  East,  where,  under  the  pressure  of  the  most  unholy  political 
and  theological  confusion,  all  enthusiasm  had  become  extinct. 


MOHAMMEDANISM  — ARABIC  VERSIONS.  457 

and  where  the  appropriate  fruits  of  Christianity,  civil  order, 
intellectual  and  moral  culture,  and  national  wealth,  had  not  yet 
been  able  to  come  to  maturity.  The  Church  fell  once  again 
under  the  domination  of  the  enemies  of  the  cross,  and  they,  to 
her  shame  be  it  said,  found  themselves  inwardly  strong  enough 
to  tolerate  her  among  them. 

That  Christianity  suffered  a  serious  and  lasting  defeat  from  Islam,  and 
that  not  merely  through  the  propagation  of  the  latter  by  force  of  arms,  can- 
not be  denied.  It  is  attested  by  a  theological  and  national  hatred  which  has 
endured  for  a  thousand  years.  But  to  any  one  not  of  the  Byzantine  faith  it 
seems  a  natural  and  necessary  event.  More  shameful  still  is  the  fact  that 
the  just  as  undeniable  decline  of  Islam  is  not  the  effect  of  a  linguistically 
related  Christian  influence,  and  that  the  utter  impotence  and  deep  spiritual 
impoverishment  of  the  Oriental  Church  is  to  be  chai'ged  much  more  to  the 
contemptible  spirit  of  its  former  monastic  scholasticism  than  to  the  scornful 
violence  of  the  conquerors. 

436.  Many,  beguiled  or  intimidated,  turned  to  the  new 
prophet ;  but  all,  as  far  as  the  sword  of  the  Arab  prevailed, 
were  obliged  gradually  to  change  their  ancestral  tongues  for 
the  speech  of  the  conqueror.  The  policy  of  the  rulers,  the 
poverty  of  the  old  idioms,  already  long  felt,  the  fresh  power 
and  beauty  of  the  new,  combined  to  make  this  the  most  widely 
current  language  ever  used  as  a  medium  of  intercourse  among 
men.  The  Syrian  and  Egyptian  Christians  forgot  their  mother 
tongues,  and  they  soon  became  known  only  to  the  learned, 
finally  were  to  be  read  only  in  the  Bible,  and  were  regarded  as 
sacred,  the  vanishing  inheritance  of  the  priests. 

Western  Asia,  as  well  as  Europe,  has  seen  its  whole  national  civilization 
several  times  subjected  to  a  complete  revolution  through  foreign  elements 
of  superior  power.  But  while  much  has  been  accomplished  by  science 
toward  the  clearer  comprehension  of  the  means  and  progress  of  the  Hellen- 
ization  of  the  Orient,  much  less  has  been  done  toward  the  knowledge  of  the 
gradual  decline  of  Hellenism  and  the  revival  of  oppressed  nationalities  on 
the  Nile  and  Euphrates,  and  almost  nothing  at  all  toward  the  pragmatic 
history  of  the  Arabicization  of  the  Oriental  peoples  and  Churches.  Oriental 
historiography,  and  European  so  far  as  it  depends  upon  it,  is  as  yet  scarcely 
anything  more  than  an  account  of  rulers  and  wars.  Yet  see  J.  v.  Hammer, 
in  the  Fundgruhe  des  Orients,  I.  360  ;  C.  E.  Oelsner,  Mohamed,  1810;  J.  J.  J. 
Dollinger,  Mukamed's  Reliq'wn  nach  ihrem  Einflusse  auf  das Leben  der  VolkeVf 
1838  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.,  XIX.  327  ff. 

The  existing  special  works  on  Oriental  Church  History  are  not  so  much 
narrative  as  statistical  in  character,  and  have  reference  rather  to  modern 
conditions.  Yet  cf.  J.  H.  Hottinger,  De  statu  christianorum  et  judceorum  tem- 
pore orti  Muhammedismi,\a.  his  Hist,  or.,  p.  320  ff.;  his  Archdologie ;  Bmgham, 
Antiqq.,  III.  408  ff. 

437.  Hence  it  became  necessary  that  Arabic  versions  of  the 
Scriptures  should  be  made,  if  the  public  reading  was  not  to  be- 
come a  mere  show,  and  this  means  of  edification  to  be  wholly 
cut  off  from  the  unlearned.  Down  to  the  time  of  Mohammed 
no  such  version  had  existed.     True,  there  were  many  Chris- 


458  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

tians  scattered  here  and  there  over  the  whole  peninsula,  and 
in  the  south  they  even  had  a  kingdom  of  their  own  for  a  time, 
though  founded  by  the  aid  of  foreign  arms ;  but  neither  there 
nor  anywhere  else  is  the  use  of  written  records  of  Christianity 
mentioned ;  the  question  is  rather  whether  the  art  of  writing 
was  known  among  the  people  at  all ;  and  as  respects  the  Koran 
in  particular,  it  betrays  neither  in  thought  nor  expression  any 
contact  whatever  with  the  New  Testament,  but  in  its  biblical 
traditions  only  an  acquaintance  with  later  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian j)0pular  tradition  and  some  altogether  extra-ecclesiastical 
dogmatic  misconceptions. 

All  that  is  supposable  would  be  that  the  Jews  may  have  translated  the 

0.  T.  wholly  or  partially  iuto  Arabic  before  the  time  of  Mohammed.  But 
this  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Koran,  and  what  we  know  of  the  writing  of 
the  Arabs  at  that  period,  together  with  the  non-existence  of  Arabic  syna- 
gogues, make  it  more  than  improbable.  See  in  general  S.  H.  Manger,  De 
fatis  rel.  chr.  apud  Arahes  (Sylloge  Schultens,  II.).  On  Mohammed's  ac- 
quaintance with  Christianity,  the  modern  critical  works  on  him,  especially 
Weil,  Lebeii  Moh.,  1843,  and  Gerock  (§  263). 

For  pre-Mohammedan  versions,  in  particular  of  the  N.  T.  :  Hug,  I.  422  ; 
Schott,  p.  G08  ;  hesitatingly  also  Michaelis,  I.  442.  Against,  Bertholdt,  11. 
649.  Hammer  {Gemdldesaal  moslim.  Herrscher,  I.  57)  takes  it  very  ill  in 
European  scholars  that  they  do  not  know  that  a  cousin  of  Mohammed's  first 
wife,  Waraka  ibn  Naufal,  a  Christian  and  a  priest,  translated  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  from  the  Hebrew  (!!),  —  a  story  which  he  himself,  doubt- 
less, only  learned  from  some  modern  Turkish  wi-iter.  Cf.  Weil,  Aloh.,  pp. 
47,  408.  Most  fully  Sprenger,  Moh.,  I.  81  f.,  124  ff.,  who  is  not  averse  from 
admitting  earlier  attempts  at  translation,  which,  however,  were  neither 
known  to  Mohammed  nor  used  officially  by  any  community  of  chiu-ches. 
Yet  see  Gildemeister,  De  evv.  arah.  (§  438),  p.  30  ;  Noldeke,  in  the  Zeitschr. 
d.  Deutschen  Morgenl.  Gesellsch.,  1858,  p.  699. 

The  tradition  (Lagarde,  Arab.  Evv.,  p.  xv.)  that  the  Arabs  themselves,  in 
640,  invited  the  Patriach  John  of  Seville  to  translate  the  Gospels  (Assemani, 
Bibl.  Orient.,  III.  2,  p.  599),  though  unauthenticated,  at  least  bears  witness 
to  the  recollection  that  it  had  not  been  done  before.     Cf.  also  Gildemeister, 

1.  l,  p.  44. 

Cf.  in  general  De  Wette,  Art.  Arab.  Bibeluberss.,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's 
Ena/U.,  I.  5.  Many  points  in  this  portion  of  the  literary  history  are  still 
obscure,  or  too  hastily  regarded  as  decided  on  the  strength  of  single  authori- 
ties. [See  Juynboll's  description  of  an  Arabic  MS.  at  Franeker,  in  Letter- 
kundige  Bydragen,  Leyd.  1838  ;  Wiseman,  On  the  Miracles  of  the  N.  T.,  in 
bis  Essays,  1.  p.  172  ff.  ;  Tregelles,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  IV.  p.  3372.] 

438.  The  case  was  different  after  the  conquest  of  those  lands 
in  which  the  two  principal  forms  of  monotheism  thus  far  ex- 
tant had  longest  had  a  home  and  an  organized  establishment. 
Here  Jews  and  Christians,  overtaken  by  the  same  loss  of  na- 
tionality, had  a  like  ecclesiastical  need,  and  vied  with  each 
other  in  the  work.  There  is  nothing  said  of  a  national  work, 
of  an  undertaking  watched  over  by  the  Church  or  committed 
to  it  by  the  ruling  powers.  According  to  the  place  of  tlieir 
origin  the  different  attempts  differed  in  extent,  sources,  and 


AEABIC.  459 

aids.  Few  asked  for  the  Greek  text.  The  ancient  version  of 
the  country  was  to  most  the  immediate  and  most  valued  source, 
the  true  original.  And  since  practical  lite  accustomed  itself  to 
the  new  order  of  things  more  quickly  than  the  sluggish  learn- 
ing, the  old  character  must  often  be  used  for  the  new  lan- 
guage. 

Of  the  N.  T.  there  has  been  printed  :  — 

(1.)  The  Gospels,  in  various  recensions  (Rome,  1590,  fol.,  in  two  editions, 
with  and  without  Latin  translation  ;  Bibl.  Sacyana,  I.  879,  p.  410  ;  in  the 
N.  T.  Arab.,  ed.  Erpenius,  Leyd.  1616,  4°;  in  the  Paris  and  London  Poly- 
glots ;  after  a  Vienna  MS.  by  P.  de  Lagarde,  L.  1864),  from  the  original 
text.  G.  C.  Storr,  De  evv.  arabicis,  Tub.  1775.  From  the  same  original 
some  derive  the  version  of  the  other  books  printed  in  the  Polyglots.     (Hug.) 

(2.)  The  other  books,  in  Erpenius,  from  the  Peshito  so  far  as  it  extends. 
From  the  same  source  Eichhorn  derives  the  text  in  the  Polyglots.  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  Arabica  versio  Actuum  erpeniana  filia  syriacce  (in  the  work  cited  in 
§  427);  O.  G.  Tychsen,  in  the  Repert.,^  X.  95. 

(3.)  The  Apocalypse  in  Erpenius  is  said  to  have  come  from  the  Coptic. 
For  a  specimen  of  an  Arabic  version  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  from  the  same 
source,  see  Hug,  I.  418. 

For  a  fuller  account  of  the  editions  see,  in  particular,  Schnurrer,  Biblio- 
fheca  arabica,  1811,  p.  339  ff.  ;  Masch,  II.  1,  p.  103  ;  also  Baumgarten, 
Nachr.,  III.  283  ;  VI.  8  ;  Handb.,  V.  283  ;  II.  294.  —  The  earliest  printed 
portion  of  the  Arabic  Bible  was  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatiaus,  ed.  Rutger 
Spey,  Heid.  1583,  with  wooden  types.  See  Hirt,  Orient.  Bibl.,  I.  1;  W.  C. 
J.  Chrysander,  De  prima  scripto  arab.  in  Germ,  excuso,  H.  1749.  Other 
small  specimens  were  :  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  ed.  Kirsten,  Breslau,  1611  (Hirt, 
I.  c,  III.  40);  Epistle  to  Titus,  Leyd.  1612  ;  Epistles  of  John,  Ley  den  and 
Paris,  1630  ;  Epistle  of  James,  Vit.  1694  ;  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Leyd. 
1615.     Cf.  also  §  431.     For  later  editions  see  §  491. 

There  is  still  much  in  manuscript,  and  in  part  scarcely  known  or  investi- 
gated, in  various  libraries,  especially  English,  and  the  store  has  been  con- 
siderably increased,  particularly  in  recent  times.  There  is  much  yet  to  be 
done  in  this  field.  J.  Gildemeister,  De  evv.  in  arabicum  e  simplici  syriaca 
translatis,  Bonn,  1865. 

As  respects  the  O.  T.,  we  have  nothing  to  do  here  with  the  many  Jewish 
(and  Samaritan)  versions,  especially  of  the  Pentateuch,  most  of  which  are 
unprinted.  That  there  were  also  Christian  versions  appears  certain.  H.  E. 
G.  Paulus,  Specimina  VII.  verss.  Pent.  arab.  nondum  editarum,  Jena,  1789; 
cf.  m  general,  Schnurrer,  De  pent.  arab.  polyglotto,  Tiib.  1780  ;  Michaelis, 
Or.  Bibl,  XVI.,  62  ;  O.  G.  Tychsen,  in  the  Repert.,  XL  ;  F.  T.  Rink,  in  Eich- 
horn's  Bibl.,  III.  665  ;  J.  A.  Theiner,  De  Cod.  pent.,  Vratisl.  1822,  The 
Pentateuch  edited  by  Erpenius,  Leyd.  1622,  4°,  is  of  Jewish  origin.  The 
other  portions  printed  in  the  Polyglots  are  of  Christian  origin,  and  the 
translation  goes  back  mostly  to  the  Hexapla  text,  Job,  Chronicles,  and  some 
of  the  historical  books  to  the  Syriac.  Inasmuch  as  certain  passages  are  said 
to  be  translated  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  may  we  not  perhaps  think  of  a 
Christian  revision  of  a  Jewish  translation  ?  See  E.  Rodiger,  De  orig.  et  in- 
dole arab.  U.  V.  T.  hist,  inter pretationis,  Halle  (1824),  1829.  Versions  of  the 
Psalms  are  especially  numerous,  several  of  which  have  been  edited,  e.  g., 
Rome,  1614,  4°;  sine  loco,  1725,  8°;  cf.  §  439  ;  Stark,  Psalm,.,  I.  314  ;  Do- 
derlein,  in  the  Repert,  II.,  IV.  ;  Hirt,  Bibl.,  IV.  291;  Alter,  in  the  Memor., 
V.  197.  Cf.  also  the  Introduction  to  Bruchstiicke  einer  Uebers.  des  Hiob,  by 
Wolf  V.  Baudissm,  L.  1870. 

Most  of  the  portions  printed  appear  to  belong  to  later  centuries,  as  is 


460  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

natural.  There  is  much  matter  belonging  under  this  head  still  lying  in 
manuscript  in  libraries,  and  the  investigation  is  by  no  means  to  be  regarded 
as  closed. 

Tradition  of  an  Arabic  version  from  the  Latin  by  John  of  Seville  in  the 
eighth  century;  see  Le  Long,  I.  112. 

439.  Under  such  circumstances,  in  order  botli  to  satisfy  cus- 
tom and  to  gain  the  purpose  of  the  Church,  the  public  reading 
very  naturally  came  to  be  done  in  both  languages,  a  custom 
probably  reaching  back  into  gray  antiquity.  For  this  purpose 
the  two  texts  were  written  side  by  side,  a  practice  which  be- 
came a  never  failing  source  of  emendations  and  interpolations, 
which  made  the  extant  copies  much  more  unlike  one  another 
than  they  doubtless  originally  were.  This  usage  appears  most 
frequently  in  Egypt  and  among  the  Samaritans,  the  latter  of 
whom,  as  Jews,  do  not  belong  in  this  history.  Thus  we  recog- 
nize in  this  circumstance  a  new  confirmation  of  the  fact  often 
exemplified  in  history,  that  there  subsists  between  religion  and 
language  a  bond  hard  to  be  loosed,  and  that  even  where  the 
latter  begins  to  give  way,  the  former  still  stretches  out  her  pro- 
tecting hand  over  a  declining  nationality. 

Oldest  trace  of  double  public  reading,  Neh.  viii.  8.  On  the  other  hand 
1  Cor.  xiv.  27  can  be  brought  into  comparison  only  provided  that  by  yKwaaats 
\aAe7v  a  speaking  in  foreign  languages  must  be  understood.  Further,  see  R. 
Simon,  Hist,  des  versions,  p.  6  ;  Niebuhr,  Arabien,  p.  86. 

Coptic-Arabic  MSS.  and  even  printed  editions  were  still  thought  neces- 
sary in  the  eighteenth  century  (Psalter,  Rome,  1744)  ;  but  to-day  the  former 
language  seems  to  have  totally  disappeared,  even  as  a  mere  liturgical  form. 
Yet  the  English  Bible  Society  still  prints  editions  in  both  languages.    §  491. 

440.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  conjectured  tliat  the  wide 
spread  of  the  Arabic  language  bore  the  knowledge  of  the  Chris- 
tian Bible  far  beyond  its  former  limits.  True,  perhaps  not  so 
often  directly,  as  if  Christian  missions  were  favoi-ed  by  the  rise 
of  the  Arabic  empire  ;  but  rather  by  the  Koran  itself,  which  in 
many  passages  bears  witness  to  the  glory  of  Jesus,  and  carried 
the  name  of  the  Messiah  into  regions  where  it  liad  never  yet 
been  heard.  By  this  means  the  theologians  of  Islam  fii^st  had 
their  attention  drawn  to  him,  and,  striving  after  thoroughness 
in  their  scholastic  learning,  took  some  pains  to  learn  more  of 
him.  Popular  legends  attached  themselves  to  him  as  to  other 
biblical  personages  noticed  by  the  Koran,  and  the  Christian 
faith  was  not  a  thing  so  entirely  foreign  to  the  Mohammedan 
people,  even  where  there  had  as  yet  been  no  close  contact  with 
any  one  who  himself  confessed  it. 

On  the  utterances  of  the  Koran  and  of  the  Mohammedan  theology  respect- 
ing biblical  personages,  see,  beside  the  principal  work  of  Gerock  (§  263),  G. 
Weil,  Bihlische  Legenden  der  Muselmanner,  1845.  Also  Tiib.  Quartalschr., 
1830,  I.  ;  Stiiudlin's  Mag.,  I.  216  ;  A.  Geiger,  Was  hat  Mohammed  aus  dem 
Judenthum  ?  Bonn,  1833  ;  Cludius,  Mohammed's  Religion,  p.  433  ff.  and  in 
general  the  works  mentioned  in  §  263. 


PERSIAN— AMHARIC.  461 

441.  Much  later,  when  there  had  long  been  nothing  left  of 
the  Arabian  power  but  the  deep-rooted  religious  heritage  and 
the  wavering  shadow  of  a  fallen  roj^al  house,  and  the  swelling 
streams  of  younger  peoples  had  begun  to  name  the  histories  of 
Western  and  Central  Asia  after  themselves,  the  fortunes  of  the 
Bible  were  also  interwoven  with  the  great  changes  of  the  na- 
tions. At  the  very  time  when  mental  stupor  seems  to  have 
weighed  heaviest  upon  Europe,  the  Mohammedan  East  had 
risen  to  its  highest  point  in  science  and  civiliza;tion,  and  the 
Modern  Persian  nation,  in  youthful  strength,  had  created  a 
language  of  its  own,  and  with  it  a  flourishing  literature.  This 
movement  was  not  without  influence  upon  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Believers  in  the  western  provinces  of  Persia  had  thus 
far  been  content  with  the  Syriac  Bible,  and  their  youth  were 
instructed  in  Christian  dogmatics  at  Edessa.  But  now  they 
obtained  their  religious  books  in  the  language  of  the  country, 
translating  partly  from  the  text  better  known  to  them,  partly 
from  the  original. 

Many  portions  of  the  0.  T.  have  also  been  translated  into  Modern  Persian 
by  the  Jews  ;  see  especially  S.  Munk,  in  Cahen's  Hebrew-French  Bible,  IX. 
134  if.  ;  E.  F.  C.  Rosenmiiller,  De  vers.  Pentateuchi  persica,  L.  1813  ;  C.  D. 
Hassler,  Ueber  eine  pers.  Uehers.  der  salom.  Schriften  (in  the  Studien,  1829,  II., 
etc.).  Some  of  tbeni  are  tolerably  recent ;  of  the  N.  T.  only  the  Gospels  are 
printed,  in  two  recensions  or  translations  :  (1)  from  the  Syriac,  in  the  Lon- 
don Polyglot,  with  critical  notes  by  Th.  Gravius  ;  Latin  therefrom,  with  a 
literary-historical  preface,  by  C.  A.  Bode,  Helmst.  1751  ;  (2)  said  to  be  from 
the  original  text,  by  A.  Wheloek,  Oxf.  1652  fol.  ;  but  the  text  is  changed 
from  the  former.     Cf.  also  Mill,  Prolegg.,  1369. 

In  the  last  century  the  celebrated  Nadir  Shah  is  said  to  have  caused  both 
the  Jewish  Law  and  the  Clmstian  Gospels  to  be  translated  into  Persian  (the 
latter  by  the  Jesuits  Duhan  and  Desvignes)  ;  see  Abd-el-Kerim's  Pilgrim- 
ages, French  edition  by  Langlfes,  p.  89;  Doru,  in  the  Halle  Allg.  Lit.  Zei- 
tung,  1848,  II.  464. 

442.  Out  of  all  connection  with  these  great  revolutions 
stands  that  which  Christianity  and  the  Bible  expei'ienced  in  the 
southernmost  outpost  of  their  extent  in  that  d;iy,  in  Ethiopia, 
although  the  events  of  Asia  may  have  repeated  themselves 
there  upon  a  smaller  scale.  Not  far  from  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury a  single  conquering  tribe  impressed  its  laws  and  language 
upon  the  country.  And  so  grew  up,  under  similar  conditions, 
out  of  the  old  Ethiopic  the  new  Amharic  version.  But  scarcely 
more  than  the  name  is  known  in  Europe,  and  in  the  country 
itself  it  was  either  of  so  little  use  or  so  soon  lost  that  even  the 
missionary  zeal  of  modern  times  has  not  been  able  to  support 
it. 

Fragment  in  the  library  at  Giessen,  see  Schmidt,  Bibl.  fur  Kritik  und  Exe- 
gese,  I.  307.  But  whether  it  belonged  to  a  complete  N.  T.,  and  whether 
the  translation  was  made  by  natives  from  the  Ethiopic  or  by  modern  mis- 


462  HISTORY   OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

slonaries  or  their  pupils,  would  be  hard  to  say.  On  the  linguistic  conditions 
of  the  country,  see  Ludolf,  Hist,  ceth.,  I.  15  ;  Wahl,  Gesch.  der  morgenl.  Spr., 
p.  501£P. 

Bruce  {Travels)  j^'ives  a  specimen  of  seven  alleged  Abyssinian  transla- 
tions of  the  Bible  (Cant.  i.  1-6),  among  which  are  the  Gheez  (P^tliiopic  usu- 
ally so-called)  and  Amharic,  and  asserts  that  he  obtained  the  whole  book  of 
Canticles  in  this  form  from  extant  church  versions  made  by  native  priests. 
This  sounds  more  than  fabulous,  and  has  not  been  confirmed,  so  far  as  I 
know,  by  later  travelers. 

443.  Turning  from  the  East  to  the  North,  we  enter  a  field 
upon  which,  inasmuch  as  its  boundaries  are  not  sharply  marked 
off  by  nature,  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches  have  often  con- 
tended, in  a  certain  sense,  even  in  the  little  sphere  with  which 
we  are  now  engaged.  Moreover,  Christianity  here  came  into 
contact  with  so  much  intellectual  and  physical  barbarism  that 
its  spread  was  but  slow,  and  the  roving  character  of  the  masses, 
toward  whom  it  directed  itself,  may  have  been  another  reason 
why  it  did  not  so  often  find  occasion  to  express  itself  in 
the  written  word.  Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  that  at  the  time 
when  the  northern  peoples  were  converted,  from  the  Saxon  ex- 
peditions of  Charlemagne  down  to  those  of  the  German  lords, 
the  Bible  had  receded  quite  into  the  background  in  the  Church, 
and  in  preaching  to  the  heathen  was  generally  subordinated  to 
more  effectual  means.  We  find  but  three  translations  of  the 
Bible  for  northern  peoples  in  the  whole  period,  and  these  sep- 
arated by  long  intervals. 

Of  these  three  we  leave  one,  the  Anglo-Saxon,  aside  for  the  present, 
partly  because  it  is  indirect,  being  derived  from  the  Latin,  partly  because  it 
has  more  the  character  of  the  versions  of  the  second  period,  and  therefore 
must  be  placed  in  close  connection  with  them. 

444.  First  of  all  the  German  tribes,  the  Goths,  after  their 
armed  migration,  had  entered  the  Roman  Empire,  and  there 
won,  beside  the  possession  of  lands  and  the  prospect  of  the  in- 
heritance of  the  Caesars,  Christian  blessings  and  hopes.  They 
were  settled  upon  the  lower  Danube  when  their  bishop,  Ul- 
filas  (so  at  least  the  relators  of  his  history  express  tlie  foreign 
name),  after  the  middle  of  the  foui-th  century,  translated  the 
Scriptures  for  them  from  the  Greek,  and  invented  the  neces- 
sary alphabet.  Whether  he  himself  completed  the  work  is  un- 
known, —  nay  even,  whether  it  ever  was  completed  ;  it  is  cer- 
tain that  it  afterward  accompanied  the  people  on  their  march 
to  the  westward,  and  there  was  unable  to  escape  the  influence 
of  the  Latin  lectionaries.  The  Gothic  nationality  has  per- 
ished, but  its  Bible,  a  precious  discovery  of  modern  times,  has 
become  the  indispensable  starting  point  for  German  science  in 
the  history  of  the  German  language. 

The  meagre  and  contradictory  information  of  ancient  writers  (Socrates, 
Sozomen,  Philostorgius,  Jornandes)  respecting  Ulfilas  (also  Vulfila,  VVol- 


GOTHIC  —  ULFILAS.  463 

fel  ?)  are  collected  and  estimated  in  the  critical  editions  (§  445),  and  in  part 
in  the  following  monographs  :  G.  F.  Heupel,  De  Ulfila  seu  versione  em.  goth- 
ica,  Vit.  1693  ;  J.  Esberg,  Uljilas  Gothorum  episcopus,  Holm.  1700  ;  J.  G. 
Wachter,  De  lingua  cod.  argentei,  with  notes  by  J.  Ihre,  all  printed  together 
in  J.  Ihre,  Scripta  versionem  idfilanam  et  I.  moesogothicam  illustrantia,  emen- 
data,  aucta,  ed.  A.  F.  Biisching,  B.  1773. 

J.  H.  Stuss,  De  versione  evv.  gothica,  Gotha,  1733  ;  C.  Schottgen,  De  an- 
tiquissimis  I.  germanicce  monumentis  guthico-theotiscis,  Stargard,  1733,  together 
with  Heupel's  essay  and  the  editor's  comments  thereon,  printed  in  J.  Oel- 
richs'  Germania  Literata,  I.,  II. 

In  particular  :  Ueher  das  Lehen  und  die  Lehre  des  TJlfila  ;  Bruchstucke  am 
dem  vierten  Jahrh.,  edited  by  G.  Waitz,  Hann.  1840.  Cf.  J.  Massmann,  in 
his  edition  of  the  Skeireins  (Gothic  Commentary  on  John,  Munich,  1834), 
p.  91  ff.  and  in  general  the  Prolegomena  in  the  editions.  S.  Davidson,  in 
the  Theological  Review,  Apr.  1869.  Cf.  especially  also  A.  Rassmann,  Art. 
Gothische  Literatur,  in  the  Halle  Encykl.  The  character  has  points  of  sim- 
ilarity and  relationship  on  the  one  side  with  the  Greek,  on  the  other  also 
with  the  Runic.  [W.  Bessel,  Das  Leben  des  Ulfilas,  u.  die  Bekehrung  der 
Gollien  zum  Christenthum,  Giitt.  1860  ;  W.  Kraii't,  Art.  Ul/ila,  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encykl.  ;  cf.  his  Die  Anf tinge  d.  christl.  Kirche  bei  d.  germ.  Volkern,  1854, 
I.  ;  Tregelles,  in  Smith's  Diet,  IV.  p.  3377  ;  Edinb.  Review,  Oct.  1877.] 

Of  the  Acts,  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Catholic  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse 
nothing  has  thus  far  been  discovered,  of  the  O.  T.  only  a  few  leaves  from 
Ezra  and  Nebemiah.  The  statement  of  ancient  writers  that  Uliilas  did  not 
translate  the  books  of  the  Kings  because  they  have  too  much  to  say  of  wars 
sounds  like  a  fable.  Tra,ces  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Psalms  have  been  pointed 
out  in  the  Skeireins.  The  Arianism  of  the  Goths  had  no  influence  upon  the 
version.     G.  L.  I^afft,  Defontibus  Uljilce  arianismi,  Bonn,  1860. 

On  the  statement  that  the  Gothic  version  was  derived  from  the  Greek 
text,  but  afterward  changed  in  accordance  with  the  Itala,  see  E.  Bernhardt 
Krit.  Unierss.  iiber  die  goth.  Bibeliibers.,  Meis.  1864,  Elberf.  1868,  2  Pts. 

445.  After  the  memory  of  this  work  had  been  lost  even  to 
scholars  for  centuries,  it  suddenly  appeared  again  at  the  end  of 
the  Thirty  Years'  Wai',  and  a  considerable  fragment  of  it  fell 
by  accident  into  the  hands  of  the  very  people  which  claims  a 
close  historical  relationship  with  these  old  Goths,  just  as  many 
a  valuable  portion  of  the  German  territory  itself  came  into  the 
possession  of  the  proper  vindicators  of  its  freedom.  Even  the 
subsequent  history  of  the  book  is  strange  enough.  The  treas- 
ure has  happily  been  increased  in  more  recent  times  by  further 
discoveries  in  Germany  and  Italy,  and  until  the  Spanish  libra- 
ries are  thoroughly  searched  the  hope  of  further  enrichment 
should  not  be  given  up,  unless,  perchance,  the  separation  of  the 
Western  Goths  from  the  Eastern  was  greater  in  ancient  times 
than  has  hitherto  been  supposed. 

I.  Codex  argenteus  (from  the  silver  binding),  carried  away  by  the  Swedes 
from  Prague,  brought  (sic)  from  Stockholm  by  a  Dutch  scholar  (Is.  Voss), 
bought  back,  now  at  Upsala  ;  contains  the  four  Gospels,  with  considerable 
gaps,  increased  in  modern  times  (now  187  leaves  of  the  original  330),  on 
purple  parchment,  with  silver  letters.  Editions  by  F.  Junius,  Dortr.  1665, 
2  vols.  4°  ;  G.  Stiernhjelm,  Stockh.  1671, 4°  ;  E.  Lye,  Oxf .  1750,  fol.,  all  with 
philological  apparatus.    New  edition  by  A.  Upstroem,  Ups.  1854,  4°  ;  Mat- 


464  HISTOEY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

thew  only,  by  J.  A.  Schmeller,  Stuttg.  1827.  —  Also  J.  Gordon,  Anim,  crit- 
icce  in  vers.  goth.  (in  Biiscliing's  Sammlung)  ;  Knittel,  Krit.  Bemerkk.,  in  Eich- 
horu's  Bihl.,  VII.  783  ;  Schmidt's  BibL,  II.  378.  The  MS.  probably  orig- 
inated  in  Italy,  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  century.  It  has  the  Euthalian  divisions. 
It  must  have  come  to  Prague  in  the  sixteenth  century  (and  not  in  the  Thirty 
Years'  War)  from  the  monastery  Werden  an  der  Ruhr,  where  several  schol- 
ars saw  it  at  that  time  and  even  took  away  specimens  of  it.  Recently  the 
Cod.  argent,  has  been  reproduced  photographically. 

II.  Fragments  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  discovered  by  F.  A.  Knittel, 
in  a  palimpsest  at  Wolfenbiittel  (Codex  CaroUnus).  Announcement  in  a 
programme  (1758)  ;  edition  (with  other  biblical  fragments,  §  392),  Br. 
1763,  4°,  and  with  notes  by  J.  Ihre,  Ups.  17G3.  —  Complete  edition  of  what 
was  known  at  that  time,  with  Introduction,  Glossary,  and  Grammar,  by  F. 
C.  Fulda  and  J.  C.  Zahn,  Weissenf .  1805,  4°. 

III.  Fragments  of  all  the  Pauline  Epistles,  indeed  with  comparatively 
slight  gaps,  some  additions  to  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  and  a  few  fragments  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  discovered  by  A.  Mai  and  C.  O.  Castiglione  in  the 
Bibliotheca  amhrosiana  at  Milan,  in  palimpsests  ;  edited  in  separate  parts, 
1819,  1829,  1834,  1835,  1839.  That  first  discovered  also  by  J.  C.  Orelli, 
Ziirich,  1822.  —  Complete  critical  edition  of  all  that  is  extant,  by  H.  C.  von 
der  Gabelentz  and  J.  Lobe,  with  philological  a]iparatus,  Altenb.  1830-46, 
3  vols.  4°  ;  J.  F.  Massmann,  Stuttg.  1857,  8°  [E.  Bernhardt,  Halle,  1875,  the 
Gothic  accompanied  by  the  Greek,  with  full  critical  notes].  Manual  editions 
by  I.  Gaugengigl,  Passau,  1848  and  freq.  F.  L.  Stamm,  Paderb.  1858.  [7tli 
ed.  by  M.  Heyne,  with  grammar  and  lexicon,  Paderb.  1878.]  —  Critical  col- 
lection for  the  improvement  of  the  text,  in  A.  Upstrom's  Fragmenla  gothica, 
Ups.  1861. 

\_The  GotJiic  and  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels  in  Parallel  Columns,  vyith  the  Versions 
of  Wycliffe  and  Tyndale,  by  J.  Bosworth,  assisted  by  Geo.  Waring,  2d  ed. 
Lond.  1874,  with  a  fac-simile  of  the  Codex  Argenteus  ;  Ulfilas  :  Euangelium 
Marci  grammatisch  erldutert,  by  R.  Midler  and  H.  Hoppe,  Berlin,  1881,  not 
accurate  ;  W.  W.  Skeats,  The  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  m  Gothic,  with  grammar, 
notes,  and  glossary,  Oxf.  1882,  excellent.] 

446.  Five  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Ulfilas,  two  Greek 
missionaries,  Cyril  and  Methodius,  came  to  Moravia,  to  the 
Slavs,  and  brought  them  together  with  the  message  of  salvation 
a  wi'itten  alphabet  and  the  Bible.  Thus  the  ancient  legends, 
witli  various  embellishments,  and  after  them  Western  Euro- 
pean scholars,  unskilled  in  the  language.  But  there  is  much 
in  the  records  that  is  obscure  and  contradictory,  and  we  are 
not  competent  to  judge  in  the  matter.  Modern  Slavic  schol- 
ars say  that  Cyril,  previously  called  Constantine,  began  about 
860  to  convert  the  Bulgarians,  and  that  he  was  soon  called  to 
Moravia  for  the  same  purpose.  The  language  which  he  had 
learned  to  use  would  have  been  the  Servo-Bulgarian  dialect, 
and  could  have  been  related  only  in  a  general  way  to  the 
West-Slavic.  The  character  which  he  adapted  to  it  is  still 
known  as  the  Cyrillic,  but  is  no  longer  in  common  use. 

Yet  even  this  is  somewhat  doubtful,  inasmuch  as  two  ancient  alphabets 
among  different  Slavic  tribes  contend  for  the  honor  of  having  first  served 
the  Church,  the  Glagolitic,  among  the  Slovens  in  Croatia  and  toward  the 


SLAVIC  — CYRIL.  465 

coast  regions,  and  the  Cyrillic,  among  the  Servians  and  Russians.    Cf.  Mik- 
losich,  Art.  Glagolitisch,  in  the  Halle  Encykl. 

J.  P.  Kohl,  Inlrod.  in  hist,  et  rem  lit.  Slavorum,  Alt.  1729  ;  J.  Dobrowsky, 
Slowanka.  Zur  Kenntniss  der  slaw.  Literaiur,  Prag,  1814  ;  idem,  Cyrill  und 
Method,  der  Slaven  Apostel,  Prag,  1823. 

447.  How  much  he  really  translated  is  uncertain,  since  the 
extant  manuscripts  of  the  biblical  work  ascribed  to  him  date 
centuries  after  his  time.  It  may  very  probably  have  been  at 
first  the  usual  church  readings,  since  it  is  added  that  he  also 
translated  the  rest  of  the  books  necessary  for  divine  service  and 
instituted  worsliip  throughout  in  the  language  of  the  people. 
Yet  other  traditions  speak  of  the  complete  Gospels,  of  the 
Epistles,  the  Psalter,  and  even  of  the  whole  Old  Testament. 
The  latter,  however,  can  by  no  means  be  proved  from  the  ex- 
tant documents,  and  of  the  New  Testament  the  Apocalypse 
was  certainly  lacking.  For  the  rest,  this  ancient,  so-called  ec- 
clesiastical Slavic  version,  whether  prepared  by  one  hand  or 
several,  in  the  course  of  a  long  period,  is  still  the  inheritance 
of  several  nationalities,  in  pai'ticular  of  the  Russians,  and  al- 
though long  since  unintelligible  to  the  people,  is  regarded  as 
sacred  from  its  very  age,  and  is  in  a  manner  the  symbol  of  the 
original  national  unity  of  the  widely  spread  stock. 

Cf.  especially  Eichhorn,  EinL,  V.  104  ;  Hug,  I.  492  ;  Dobrowsky,  in 
Michaelis,  Neue  Bihl,  VII.  155,  and  in  Griesbach's  N.  T.,  I.  127  ;  II.  32  ; 
La  Croze,  Epp.,  III.  200  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  I.  481  ;  III.  477  ;  Hender- 
son, Biblical  Researches,  p.  G7  If.,  in  which  is  an  extensive  catalogue  of  mod- 
ern editions  ;  Matthsei,  JDe  vers,  slavica  Apocalypseos,  in  his  edition  of  the  N. 
T.,  XII.  343. 

It  was  from  the  first  and  to  an  especial  degree  the  lot  of  the  Slavic  Chris- 
tians and  churches  to  be  drawn  hither  and  thither  and  divided  by  the  rivalry 
of  Roman  and  Greek  influence.  The  former  showed  itself  hostile  to  every- 
thing which  could  favor  a  national  development  (notoriously  in  the  time  of 
Huss).  Pope  John  VIII.  (Letter  to  Duke  Swatopluk  of  Moravia  ;  Baronius, 
Ad  ann  880)  forbade  the  reading  of  the  mass  in  Slavic  and  gave  command  that 
propter  majorem  honorijicentiam  evangelium  latine  legatur,  postmodum  slav.  I. 
translation  annuncietur.  In  the  tenth  century  the  Slavic  service  seems  to 
have  ceased  there.  Gregory  VII.  {Epp.,  VII.  15,  Ann.  1080)  expressly  for- 
bids the  use  of  the  non-Latin  Bible.  See  Hegelmaier,  Geschichte  des  Bibel- 
verbots,  p.  101  ff. 

The  Old  Slavic  version  came  to  Russia,  with  Christianity,  about  the  year 
988  ;  but  it  suffered  many  changes  there  both  in  language  and  text  ;  the 
printed  editions  generally  give  its  latest  form.  It  is  disputed  whether,  upon 
the  subsequent  subjection  of  the  West-Slavic  Church  to  the  Roman  see,  the 
translation  was  obliged  also  to  become  the  victim  of  the  Latin  text. 

The  oldest  known  MS.  of  tlie  Slavic  version  is  the  so-called  Ostromir 
Evangelistary,  written  about  1056  for  the  Knas  Ostromir  of  Novgorod,  in 
Cyrillic  characters.  Edited  by  AVostokoff,  St.  Pet.  1843.  According  to 
some,  the  famous  MS.  of  the  Gospels  at  Rlieims,  which  was  used  to  admin- 
ister the  oath  at  the  coronation  of  the  French  kings  (Texte  du  Sacre),  the 
language  of  which  was  not  known  until  modern  times,  is  very  nearly  as  old. 
Editions  by  Silvestre,  P.  1843  ;  by  Hanka,  Prag,  1846. 

First  edition  of  the  Gospels,  1512  ;  of  the  Bible,  Ostrog,  1581.  —  The  N. 
30 


466  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

T.  revised  according  to  the  Greek,  Wilna,  1G23,  and  freq.  —  A  new  recen- 
sion, undertaken  by  order  of  Peter  the  Great,  did  not  appear  until  1751.  — 
There  are  also  later  editions  in  which  it  is  printed  synoptically  with  the 
Modern  Russian  version.     (§  490.) 

448.  For  the  history  of  Christianity  in  general  and  in  particu- 
lar for  the  history  of  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  what  was  done 
in  the  West  is  of  by  far  the  most  importance,  and  to  this  we 
now  turn  our  attention.  Here  the  conditions  were  altogether 
peculiar.  From  the  Adriatic  to  the  ocean,  and  from  Mt.  Athis 
to  the  North  Sea,  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  made  its  way 
thither,  every  one  who  wished  to  be  or  become  anything  spoke 
Latin.  The  ancient  vernacular  languages  had  disappeared  al- 
together from  the  cities,  all  the  more  because  these  in  many 
cases  contained  a  ruling  population  composed  of  military  colo- 
nies and  other  accessions  from  Italy.  Even  in  the  country 
they  were  obliged  to  retreat  and  took  refuge  in  the  mountains 
and  in  the  most  western  and  remote  corners.  To  the  learned, 
and  to  whole  cities  in  southern  Italy,  the  Greek  was  still  fa- 
miliar. When,  therefore,  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  began  to 
be  known  in  wider  circles,  many  in  this  region  still  understood 
the  original  text,  or  there  were  men  who  were  able  to  inter- 
pret it  upon  the  spot. 

Cf.  the  notes  on  §§49  and  457.  —  The  conceits  of  Catholic  Apologists 
(Serariiis,  Bianchini,  Sabatier,  and  others),  of  a  Latin  version  of  the  Bible  by 
an  Apostle,  in  particular  by  Paul,  in  the  time  of  Nero,  may  fitly  be  passed 
over  in  silence  ;  yet  they  have  been  surpassed  by  Protestants,  who  could  not 
conceive  even  the  most  ancient  mission  without  the  Bible  at  once  made  ac- 
cessible to  the  people.     Cf.  §  434. 

449.  But  in  Spain,  Gaul,  and  Africa,  where  the  knowledge 
of  Greek  was  rare  or  wholly  wanting,  large  churches  probably 
did  not  arise  very  long  before  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  there  was  therefore  no  necessity  of  having  a  translation 
for  public  reading  in  assemblies  before  that  time  ;  aside  from 
the  fact  that  the  practice  of  public  reading  is  itself  probably  of 
later  origin  in  the  West.  But  at  the  end  of  this  century  there 
is  certainly  a  current  Latin  version  spoken  of,  though  where  it 
may  have  arisen  is  a  question  which  can  no  longer  be  answered. 
The  exceedingly  bad  language  of  all  the  portions  extant  points 
to  remote  provinces  or  a  low  grade  of  society.  There  is  noth- 
ing impossible  in  the  supposition,  considering  the  lack  of  hie- 
rarchical unity  at  that  time,  that  there  were  from  the  first  sev- 
eral Latin  versions  ;  though  perhaps  Africa  has  the  best  claim 
to  the  honor  of  the  first  work. 

In  the  lack  of  contemporary  testimony  there  is  much  room  here  for  con- 
jecture. The  oldest  ecclesiastical  writer  of  the  West,  Tertullian,  speaks  of 
a  current  Latin  version,  which  he  contrasts  with  the  Greek  text  (authenticus)  ; 
De  monogam.,  ch.  xi. 

It  is  conceivable,  though  wholly  improbable,  that  the  Jews  had  already 


LATIN.  467 

undertaken  a  translation  (Is.  Yoss,  De  oracc.  SihijlL,  cli.  xili.) ;  that  here  and 
there  single  books  may  have  been  translated,  and  in  this  way  a  complete 
work  may  have  arisen  gradually  (Mill,  Prolegg.,  §  511,  and  others).  Our 
conception  of  the  origin  of  the  ancient  versions  ought  not  to  be  dominated 
by  reference  to  the  possible  needs  of  private  edification,  which  in  non-Hel- 
lenic communities  probably  only  came  in  as  a  consequence  of  a  public  and 
ecclesiastical  custom.  But  to  suppose  public  reading  in  Latin  to  have  been 
introduced  before  150  is  inadmissible,  since  it  had  probably  only  just  begun 
even  in  Greek  at  that  time.  That  the  Apostle  Peter  had  the  liturgy  per- 
formed at  Rome  in  Latin  is  doubtless  an  idea  of  Pope  Innocent  I.  (Mansi, 
III.  1028),  but  it  is  not  history.  The  Roman  bishops  of  the  earliest  period 
have  Greek  names  almost  without  exception. 

Cf.  on  the  whole  subject,  beside  the  Introductions,  P.  Pithceus,  De  latinis 
hibliorum  interpretibus,  in  the  Critici  ss.,  VI.  ;  J  F  Lebret,  De  usu  vers.  lat.  in 
eccl.  chr.,  Tiib.  178G  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchengcsch.,  IX.  116  fP.  ;  G.  Riegler, 
Krit.  Geschichte  der  Vulgata,  Sulzb.  1820  ;  Leander  van  Ess,  Pragmatische 
Geschichte  der  Vulgata,  Tiib.  1824;  O.  F  Fritzsche,  Art.  Vulgata,  in  Herzog's 
Encykl. ;  F.  Kaulen,  Gesch.  der  Vulgata,  Mayence,  1868.  [H.  Ronsch,  Die 
lat.  Bibelilhersetzungen  im  christl.  Afrika  zur  Zeit  des  A  ugustinus,  in  the  Zeitschr. 
f.  d.  hist.  TheoL,  1867,  p.  606  ff.  ;  L.  Diestel,  Gesch.  d.  A.  T.  in  der  christl. 
Kirche,  Jena,  1869,  p.  94  ff.  ;  L.  Ziegler,  Die  lat.  Bibeliibersetzungen  vor  Hie- 
ronymus  u.  die  Itala  des  Augustinus,  Munich,  1879;  Abbot,  in  Mitchell's  Criti- 
cal Handbook,  1880,  p.  133  ff .  ;  O.  F  Fritzsche,  Art.  Latein.  Bibeliibersetz- 
ungen, in  the  new  edition  of  Herzog's  Encykl.,  VIII.  1881,  p.  433  If.  ;  West- 
cott,  Art.  Vulgate,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  IV  p.  3451  ff.  ;  Westcvott  and  Hort,  Gk. 
Test.,  II.  p.  78  ff.  ;  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  144  ff.] 

450.  Yet  this  view  of  an  original  plurality  of  Latin  versions 
cannot  be  firmly  established  historically,  from  lack  of  sufficient 
evidence  from  the  following  period.  For  the  existing  evidence, 
consisting  properly  only  of  occasional  quotations  of  isolated 
passages  of  Scripture  for  theological  purposes,  and  in  compara- 
tively few  authors,  never  rises  to  the  value  of  literary-histori- 
cal information.  It  is  only  certain  that  in  the  second  half  of 
the  fourth  century  there  was  general  complaint  of  the  great 
diversity  of  the  copies,  among  which  no  one  could  any  longer 
find  his  way,  while  at  the  same  time  the  knowledge  of  Greek 
was  becoming  more  and  more  rare.  But  as  to  the  cause  of  this 
diversity  opinions  were  divided.  Some,  holding  to  the  appear- 
ance, referred  it  to  an  actual,  original  plurality  of  independent 
works  ;  others,  noticing  also  the  signs  of  relationship,  explained 
it  from  later  disfigurements.  None  thoroughly  investigated 
the  matter. 

Augustine,  De  doctr.  chr.,  ii.  11  :  Qui  scripturas  ex  hebrcea  lingua  in  grcecam 
verterunt,  numerari  possunt,  latini  autem  interpretes  nulla  modo  (tlierefore  more 
than  seventy,  infers  Michaelis,  I.  471  !).  Ut  enim  cuiquam  priinis  fidei  tempori- 
bus  in  manus  venit  codex  grcecus,  et  aliquantulum  facultatis  sibi  utriusque  Ungues 
habere  videbatur,  ausus  est  interpretari,  etc.  ;  in  the  following  pages  repeat- 
edly :  interpretum  numerositas,  injinita  varietas,  plures  interpretes.  Other  pas- 
sages are  collected  by  Van  Ess,  p.  10  ff.  In  and  of  themselves  they  might 
be  understood  to  refer  to  arbitrary  alterations  made  in  an  already  existing 
Latin  version  to  accord  with  the  Greek,  and  would  not  necessarily  refer  to 
new  and  complete  works  ;  and  so  they  are  conceived,  e.  g.,  by  Reusch,  Tiib, 


468  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

Quartalschr.,  1862,  II.,  especially  with  reference  to  the  passage  Contra  Faus- 
tum,  xi.  2  :  Si  de  fide  exx.  qucestlo  verteretur,  vel  ex  aliarum  reglonum  codicibus 
wide  ipsa  doctrina  commeavit  nostra  dubitatio  diiudicaretur,  vel  si  ibi  quoque  co- 
dices variarent  plures  puucioribus  aut  vetustiores  recentioribus  pneferrentur,  et  si 
adhuc  esset  incerta  varietas  priecedens  lingua,  unde  illud  interpretatum  est,  con- 
suleretur,  which,  however,  is  by  no  means  decisive,  since  here  the  texts  are 
set  over  ao-ainst  one  another  in  threefold  antithesis,  with  respect  to  language, 
with  respect  to  age  and  number  of  witnesses,  and  with  respect  to  country. 

Cf.  §  452. 

On  the  contrary,  Jerome,  Prcef.  in  evv.  ad  Damasum :  Si  latinis  exemplaribus 
fides  est  adhibenda,  respondebunt .-  quibus  ?  tot  stmt  enini  exemplaria  pcene  quod 
codices.  Si  autern  Veritas  est  qucerenda  de  pluribus,  cur  non  ad  groicam  originem 
revertentes,  ea  quce  vel  a  vitiosis  interpretibus  male  reddita,  vel  a  prcesumptoribus 
imperitis  emendata  perversius,  vel  a  librariis  dormitantibus  aut  addiia  sunt  aut 
mutata  corrigamus  ?  Here  exemplaria  evidently  means  recensions,  forms  of  the 
text,  and  Jerome  cannot  mean  to  say  that  there  were  as  many  different  versions 
as  MSS.  Prcef.  in.Tosuam:  apud  latinos  tot  exx.  quot  codices  et  unusquisque  pro 
suo  arbitrio  vel  addidit  vel  subtraxit  quod  ei  visum  est.  Cf .  several  other  passages 
(collected  in  Van  Ess,  I.  c),  in  which  this  diversity  is  represented  not  as  some- 
thing original,  but  as  a  vitiositas,  vitium,  corruptio,  depravatio,  etc.,  which  is 
partly  charged  upon  the  copyists  alone. 

Thus  there  is  everywhere  the  same  fundamental  diversity  of  view  ,  one 
speaks  of  a  copia  interpretum,  another  of  a  varietas  exemplarium,  which  is  often 
overlooked.  If,  in  the  lack  of  other  witnesses,  we  were  obliged  to  give  one 
of  these  two  the  preference,  the  choice  could  not  be  a  hard  one.  The  same 
diversity  of  views  still  exists  :  Michaelis,  Jahn,  Riegler,  Van  Ess,  De  Wette, 
and  many  others,  agree  with  Augustine  ;  the  editors  of  the  Itala,  Semler, 
Wetstein,  Eichhorn,  etc.,  hold  to  Jerome.  Yet  the  more  coherent  portions 
of  Latin  texts  of  ancient  date  come  to  light,  the  more  the  scale  inclines  in 
favor  of  the  view  of  a  plurality  of  independent  works. 

451.  Notwithstanding  all  this  uncertainty  of  judgment  as  to 
the  facts  of  tlie  case,  it  was  customary,  even  in  antiquity, 
to  speak  of  one  Latin  version.  This  came  about  paitly  uncon- 
sciously, in  contrast  with  the  original  text,  partly  because  of  its 
being  inferred  respecting  that  which  was  used  in  public  reading 
from  the  idea  of  tlie  unity  of  the  Church.  Many  also  may  have 
had  in  mind  chiefly  only  that  recension  which  they  generally 
used.  A  critical  comparison  of  many  copies  we  onglit  not  to 
expect  in  the  West  at  that  time.  Then  it  is  more  than  prob- 
able that  in  process  of  time  most  of  the  new  copies  prei)ared 
were  taken  from  such  as  had  gained  a  certain  authoi'ity  by 
ecclesiastical  use,  so  that  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  original 
Greek  text,  a  local  coloring  must  have  resulted.  Nevertheless, 
all  these  phenomena  do  not  suffice  to  decide  the  points  in 
question. 

The  expression  communis,  vulgata  editio  (Greek  koiv^  iKSoa-is),  which  occurs 
frequently  in  Jerome,  and  even  in  later  writers  (Van  Ess,  p.  24  ff.),  always 
denotes  the  LXX.  in  distinction  from  the  Hebrew  text,  perhaps  also  from 
the  Hexapla  recension.  Over  against  it,  when  speaking  of  any  particular 
passage  or  reading,  stood  the  formula  latinus  interpres,  latini  codices,  still 
more  frequently  in  latino,  and  the  knowledge  that  there  were  several  versions 
probably  came  to  most  only  with  the  fame  of  the  subsequent  work  of  Jerome, 


PRE-JEROMIC    VERSIONS  — IT  ALA.  469 

wliich  was  a  nova  translatio  by  the  side  of  the  vetus,  i.  e.,  the  pre-Jeromic, 
which,  whatever  may  have  been  its  origin,  all  the  more  certainly  became,  in 
the  thought  of  theologians,  a  single  one,  when  there  came  to  be  another 
whose  origin  the  whole  world  knew,  which  could  be  distinguished  from  it  by 
the  most  unlearned. 

452.  To  this  ancient  confusion  modern  times  have  the  merit 
of  having  added  another  element.  There  has  been  discovered, 
in  that  author  who  has  so  much  to  say  of  the  alleged  manifold 
Latin  versions,  a  name  for  one  of  them,  of  very  doubtful 
authority,  which,  if  genuine  and  correct,  allows  the  assumption 
of  similar  names  for  the  others.  For  the  name  Versio  Itala, 
if  accepted,  must  evidently  both  decide  in  favor  of  the  original 
plurality  of  versions,  and  fix  the  nativity  of  the  one  preferred 
by  Augustine.  It  is  noteworthy  that  even  those  scholars  use 
this  name  who  would  designate  by  it  the  single  translation 
whose  existence  they  recognize.  But  on  the  other  hand  many 
defenders  of  the  opposite  opinion  have  used  the  same  name  for 
each  and  every  remnant  of  the  Old  Latin  Bible,  which  never- 
theless possibly,  and  according  to  them  probably,  are  of  differ- 
ent origin,  and  of  which  perhaps  not  a  single  one  belonged  to 
that  Itala  which  the  Bishop  of  Hippo  had  in  mind ! 

Augustine,  De  doctr.  chr.,  ii.  15  :  In  ipsis  interpretatlonibus  itala  cceteris 
prceferatur,  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  seyitentice. 

Itala  is  not  a  proper  name,  and  can  only  be  contrasted  with  an  Africana, 
etc.,  and  designate  a  version  which  arose  in  Italy,  or  was  contained  in  the 
copies  of  Italian  churches.  It  is  certainly  noteworthy  (1)  that  neither 
Augustine  nor  any  one  else  uses  the  name  farther  ;  (2)  that  he  has  so 
unusual  a  form,  instead  of  Italica,  as,  for  example,  even  Bianchini  thought 
it  necessary  to  emend  it  ;  (3)  that  any  one  in  Augustine's  time  should  still 
have  been  in  doubt  about  the  choice  of  an  official  text,  and  should  have  pre- 
ferred a  foreign  one  to  a  domestic.  Hence  the  conjecture  that  the  text  is 
corrupt,  and  that  perhaps  usitata  (Potter)  is  to  be  read.  (Bentley's  con- 
jecture, ilia  .  .  .  qwe  is  inapt.)  Nevertheless,  upon  Augustine's  view  of  the 
plurality  of  versions,  it  is  not  remote  to  conceive  a  local  distinction  of  copies. 
See  Lachmann's  Preface  to  the  first  part  of  liis  larger  edition  of  the  N.  T. 

The  following  period  seems  to  have  had  an  even  less  clear  conception  of 
the  state  of  the  case,  since,  for  example,  Isidorus  Hispal.,  Etym.,  VI.  5, 
refers  the  above  phrase  of  Augustine  without  further  comment  to  the  trans- 
lation of  Jerome.  Cf.  §  455.  I  formerly  expressed  the  conjecture  (which 
even  Fritzsche,  I.  c,  p.  429,  does  not  exactly  reject)  that  Augustine  may  have 
meant  by  his  Itala  the  Hexapla  edition  of  Jerome  (§  454).  Cf.  Augustine, 
Ep.  28,  II.,  p.  61,  Bass. 

453.  In  this  state  of  the  case  a  judgment  respecting  the 
character  and  value  of  the  extant  portions  of  the  pre-Jeromic 
version  is  very  precarious,  and  to  a  certain  extent  inadmissible. 
It  will  always  be  safest  if  every  such  judgment  is  limited  to  the 
particular  fragment  or  manuscript  in' hand,  since  the  question 
whether  several  or  all  of  them  belong  together  will  always  be 
a  doubtful  one.  Yet  so  much  as  this  may  be  said  in  general, 
that  in  these  ancient  attempts  at  translation  a  degree  of  liter- 


470  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

Illness  prevails  which  violates  in  many  ways  the  well-known 
genius  of  the  Latin  language,  but  which  in  its  unclassic  excres- 
cences and  numerous  solecisms  perhaps  indicates  not  so  much 
an  extra-Italian  nativity  as  a  sphere  of  origin  removed  from 
higher  and  metropolitan  culture,  and  so  indirectly  a  somewhat 
later  date.  Besides,  they  doubtless  grew  up  in  part  from  a 
badly  confused  text,  and  in  part  were  further  corrupted. 

Of  the  O.  T.  only  a  few  books  have  been  preserved  complete  (in  particular 
the  Psalms,  Esther,  and  several  Apocrypha),  of  others  only  fragments.  Of 
the  N.  T.,  on  the  contrary,  nearly  all  can  be  gathered  together,  partly  from 
Latin,  partly  from  Greeco-Latin  (§  392)  codices.  Of  the  latter  the  most 
celebrated  are,  for  the  Gospels,  D ;  for  the  Acts,  D,  E ;  for  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  D,  E,  G.  Of  the  former,  for  the  most  part  only  MSS.  of  the  Gospels 
are  known  or  important  :  Codd.  Vercellensis,  Veronensis,  Brixianus,  BohUensis 
(from  the  monastery  of  Bobbio,  now  at  Turin),  Corbeiensis,  Colbertinus,  at 
Paris,  Rhedlgerianus,  at  Breslau,  and  two  at  Vienna.  See  on  these  the  mon- 
ographs of  Martianay,  Ruggieri,  Garbelli,  Bianchini,  in  the  latter's  edition 
of  the  Gospels,  to  be  mentioned  below.  Cf.  idem,  Vmdicice  can.  ss.,  Rome, 
1740,  fol.;  J.  E.  Scheibel,  Codex  Rhedigerianus,  Br.  1763  ;  D.  Schulz,  Be  cod. 
rhedigeriano,  Br.  1814;  and  the  Prolegomena  of  the  editions. 

Editions:  (Masch,  II.  3,  p.  6  ft'.;  Rosenmiiller,ifrt«c/^*.,  III.  173;  Riegler, 
I.  c,  p.  41  f.  ;  Eichhorn,  IV.  373)  Bihliorum  SS.  laiince  versiones  antiquce  .leu 
vetus  Itala  cett.  qucecunque  reperiri  potuerunt,  ed.  ?.  Sabatier,  Rheims,  1743, 
3  vols.,  fol.,  ed.  2,  1749  ;  Evangeliarum  quadruplex  latince  vers.  ant.  s.  veteris 
italicce,  ed.  Jos.  Bianchini,  Rome,  1749,  2  vols.,  fol.  (the  text  synoptic,  from 
Vercell.,  Veron.,  Brix.,  Corb.)  with  many  fae-similes  of  ancient  MSS.  ;  Cod. 
Vercellensis  sejiarately,  by  J.  A.  Iricus,  Mail.  1748,  4°;  Evangelium  palatinum 
ineditum  s.  reliquke  textus  evv.  lat.  antehieron.  versionis  ex  cod.  palaiino 
(Vindobon.),  ed.  C.  Tischendorf,  1847,  4°.  Also  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  (and 
Epistle  of  James),  ed.  Martianay,  from  the  Cod.  Corb.,  P.  1695,  12°;  Mark 
and  Luke  from  a  Vienna  MS.  by  Alter,  in  the  N.  Repert.,  III.,  and  in  the 
Memorab.,  VII.  ;  the  Gospels  from  the  Cod.  Rhediger.,  by  F.  Haase,  Bresl. 
1805  f.  ;  the  Acts  from  Cod.  Laud.,  by  Hwiid,  in  the  work  cited  in  §  417  ; 
Matthew  and  Mark  from  Cod.  Bobb.,  by  Fleck,  in  his  Anecdota,  together 
with  fragments  from  the  O.  T. ;  Leviticus  and  Nun)bers  from  a  Cod.  Ash- 
burnham.,  Lond.  1868,  fol.;  fragments  from  the  Prophets  by  Miinter,  from  a 
Wiirzburg  MS.,  Hafn.  1819;  by  E.  Ranke,  many  fragments  from  the  covers 
of  ancient  MSS.  of  Fulda,  Darmst.  and  Stuttg.  1856,  1858  ;  Curiensia 
fragmenta  ev.  Luc,  Mb.  1872  ;  others  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1872,  III.  ; 
especially  his  Wilrzburger  Palimpseste,  with  fragments  from  the  Pentateuch 
and  Prophets,  Vienna,  1871,  4°  ;  smaller  fragments  from  Ezekiel  and 
Proverbs,  by  A.  Vogel,  from  Austrian  MSS.,  1868.  [Matthsei,  Codex  Boer- 
neranius,  Mis.  1791  ;  Tischendorf,  Codex  Claromontanus,  1852  ;  Scrivener, 
Codex  Augiensis,  Camb.  1859  ;  Codex  Bezce,  Camb.  1864  ;  Ziegler,  Itala- 
fragmente,  Marb.  1876  ;  Belsheim,  Codex  Aureus  (Gospels  ;  text  mixed, 
largely  Vulgate),  Christiania,  1878;  Die  Apostelgesch.  u.  die  Ojfenb.  Johannis 
in  einer  alten  lat.  Uebersetzung  aus  dem  Gigas  Librorum,  Christiania,  1879  ; 
Ulysse  Robert,  Codex  Lugdunensis  (Pentateuch),  P  1881  ] 

Also  :  H.  Ronsch,  Das  N.  T  Tertullians  aus  s.  Schriften  zusammengestellt, 
L.  1871.  —  In  Semler's  Paraphrasen  also  (§  573)  there  is  a  specimen  of  pre- 
Jeromic  versions.  —  For  editions  of  the  Psalms,  see  §  454.  For  other 
editions  of  particular  MSS.,  §  392.  Other  fragments  are  mentioned  by 
Fritzsche,  I.  c,  p.  431  f.;  Reusch,  in  the  Tub.  Quartahchr.,  1872,  III. 

The  writings  of  the  older  Latin  Church  Fathers  naturally  constitute  an 
almost  inexhaustible  mine  of  fragments  of  pre-Jeromic  versions,  from  which 


JEROME  — VULGATE.  471 

the  already  rich  collection  of  Sabatier  might  still  be  increased  ;  but  in  the 
use  of  his  collection  mistakes  have  been  made  in  more  than  one  respect, 
from  the  fact  that  even  Jerome's  own  works  have  been  used  for  it,  and  no 
attention  whatever  has  been  paid  to  the  geographical  relations  of  the  wit- 
nesses. 

It  cannot  be  proved  from  the  bad  Latin  alone  that  the  version  must  have 
had  its  origin  outside  of  Italy;  for  in  that  case  it  would  still  be  inconceivable 
that  it  should  have  been  read  there  without  revision  and  improvement. 
Moreover  the  MSS.  named  indicate  plainly  to  the  most  recent  critics  different 
recensions,  which  they  call  the  Italian  and  the  African,  beside  which,  how- 
ever, mixed  texts  are  also  assumed.  Cf.  also  Semler,  Obss.  ad  hist,  latinarum 
recensionum  N.  T.,  in  Wetsteiu's  Prolegomena,  p.  583  ff. 

Philological  studies  on  the  Old  Latin  version  have  been  published  by  H. 
Ronsch,  Das  Sprachidiom  der  Itala  und  Vulgata,  Marb.  1869  [2d  ed.,  revised, 
1875],  and  in  several  articles  in  the  Zeitschr.fUr  hist.TheoL,  18G9,  III.  ',  1870, 
L;  1871,  IV.     Cf.  also  Kaulen,  p.  131  ff. 

454.  This  corruption  and  uncertainty  of  the  copies  at  last 
became  so  great  that  the  Church  was  compelled  to  turn  her 
attention  to  the  matter  seriously.  And  at  just  the  right  time 
the  Roman  Bishop  Damasus  turned  with  the  important  com- 
mission to  the  last  Church  teacher  of  the  West  who  had  lin- 
guistic knowledge,  industry,  and  leisure  enough  not  to  be  alto- 
gether unequal  to  it.  Jerome  undertook  the  task,  as  thankless 
as  it  was  difficult,  and  devoted  twenty  yeai's  to  it.  But  often 
timidly  expunging  only  the  grossest  errors,  often  hastily  let- 
ting it  stand  when  approximately  correct,  he  brought  the  work 
to  no  thoroughly  satisfactory  result,  and  therefore  soon  deter- 
mined to  make  a  translation  of  his  own  from  the  original  text, 
of  which,  however,  only  the  Old  Testament  was  completed, 
and  for  which,  although  it  was  his  best  work,  he  received  only 
abuse  and  persecution. 

Jerome  began  about  382  with  the  N.  T.  :  Novum  Testamentum  grcecce  fidei 
reddidi  (Catal.  Scr.  eccL,  135),  and  describes  the  work  as  great  and  perilous. 
Prcef.  in  Evv.  ad  Damasum:  Novum  opus  me  facere  cogis  ex  veteri  ut  post  exx. 
SS.  toto  orbe  dispersa  quasi  arbiter  sedeam  et,  quia  inter  se  variant,  quce  sint  ilia 
quce  cum  grcxca  consentiant  veritate  decernam.  Pius  labor  sed  periculosa  prce- 
sumtio.  .  .  .  Quis  enim  doctus  pariter  et  indoctus,  cum  in  manus  volumen  assum- 
serit  et  a  saliva  quam  semel  imbibit  viderit  discrepare  quod  lectitat,  non  statim 
erumpat  in  vocem  me  falsarium,  me  clamitans  esse  sacrilegum  qui  audeam  in  vett. 
II.  aliquid  mutare,  addere,  corrigere  .  .  .  ?  This  prospect  made  him  shrink  ; 
he  chose  codices  qui  non  ita  multum  a  lectionis  latince  consuetudine  discreparent ; 
and  ita  calamo  temperavimus  ut  his  tantum  quce  sensum  videbantur  mutare  cor- 
rectis  reliqua  manere  pateremur  utfuerunt. 

Then  he  revised  the  Psalms,  first  after  the  common  Alexandrian  text  (cur- 
sim  —  and  so  ne  nimia  novitate  lectoris  studium  terreremus),  afterward  accord- 
ing to  the  Hexapla,  with  the  critical  marks  of  Origen  (see  Prol.  2  in  Ps.  ; 
Ep.  ad  Suniam  et  Fretelam  de  emend.  Ps. ;  Apol.  adv.  Rufin.,  ii.  24).  Both 
recensions  are  still  extant,  the  former  known  as  the  Psalterium  Romanum 
and  the  latter  as  the  Psalterium  Gallicanum  ;  both  frequently  printed,  e.  g., 
Psalterium  quincuplex  dom.  gall.  hebr.  (i.  e.,  translated  directly)  vetus  (i.  e.,  ac- 
cording to  the  Itala)  conciliatum,  ed.  J.  Faber  Stapulensis,  P.  1513,  fol.  Cf. 
Stark,  Davidis  carmina,  I.  254. 


472  HISTORY  OF   THE   VERSIONS. 

He  went  on  A;\'ith  the  latter  work  ;  but  it  is  uncertain  whether  it  was  com- 
pleted (In  Tit.,  ch.  iii.  :  Nobis  cures  fuit  omnes  V.  T.  libros  quos  Adamantius 
(Origen)  in  Tiexapla  digesserat  ...  ex  ipsis  authenticis  emendare)  or  only  ex- 
tended over  Job,  the  books  of  Solomon,  and  Chronicles,  of  which  he  speaks, 
Apol.  adv.  Rufin.,  I.  c,  and  to  which  special  prefaces  have  been  preserved. 
Yet  this  recension  may  have  been  lost,  over  which  he  seems  to  be  mourning 
in  Ep.  OJ/,  ad  Augustin. :  pleraque  prions  laboris  fraude  amisimus.  Only  Job 
has  been  printed.  Strabo  seems  to  know  a  translation  of  Jeremiah  from  the 
Greek  (§  455).  For  the  rest,  nothing  is  more  certam  than  that  Jerome  in 
his  Commentaries  on  the  O.  T.  abandons  the  extant  Latin  text  in  number- 
less instances.     Cf.  Prol.  ad  Salom. 

Finally,  he  applied  himself  to  a  new  translation  from  the  origuial  text  (a 
gigantic  undertaking  for  that  time),  with  his  own  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and 
Jewish  aid,  yet  throughout  more  dependent  on  the  LXX.  than  he  is  willing 
to  acknowledge  ;  he  complains  very  naively  {Comm.  III.  in  Gal.) :  omnem 
sermonis  latini  elegantiam  et  venustatem  stridor  hebraicce  lectionis  sordidavit,  etc. 
The  N.  T.  was  not  translated  at  all,  nor  the  Apocrypha. 

On  the  attacks  which  Jerome  had  to  suifer  because  of  his  work  see  Rujini 
invectivce  in  Hieron.  libri  II. ;  Hieronymi  apologia  adv.  Rujiiium  libri  III.  ;  his 
correspondence  with  Augustine,  extracts  from  which  in  Van  Ess,  p.  110  ff. 
Cf.  also  the  letter  Ad  Pammachium. 

The  genuine  (?)  work  of  Jerome  in  all  its  forms  under  the  title  :  S. 
Hieronymi  divina  bibliotheca  antehac  inedita  complectens  translationes  latinas 
V.  et  N.  T.  cum  ex  ebrceis  turn  e  greeds  fontibus  derivata,  etc.,  forms  the  first 
volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  his  Opera,  ed.  Martianay,  P.  1693,  5 
vols.,  fol.  The  very  interesting  Prologi  to  the  separate  books  are  found  in 
all  the  older  Latin  editions  of  the  Bible. 

Cf .  in  general  :  L.  Engelstoft,  Hieronymus  Stridonensis  inierpres  criticus  ex- 
egeta,  etc.,  Hafn.  1797;  D.  v.  Coelln,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encykl.,  II.  8  ; 
Oudin,  Scriptt.  eccl.,  I.  789  fF.  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.,  XL  ;  O.  Zockler, 
Hieronymus,  Gotha,  1865,  p.  99  f.,  179  f.,  207  f.,  342  f.  ;  A.  J.  Binterim,  De 
curis  philol.  Hieron.  in  N.  T.,  in  his  Propempticum  de  lingua  N.  T.,  1822,  p. 
113  ;  Petitdidier,  Diss.,  p.  81;  Morin,  Exercitt.  bibl.,  p.  iSl  ff.  ;  J.  Hasfeus, 
Vindicice  vulg.  interpr.  (in  the  Bibl.  Brem.,  IV.) ;  Semler,  Preface  to  the  Ger- 
man translation  of  R.  Simon,  III.  ;  Calmet,  Bihl.  Unterss.,  V.  240  ;  Fleck, 
Disq.  generalis  de  vers,  vulg.,  before  his  edition  of  the  Vulgate.  —  On  the  re- 
lation of  Jerome's  translation  to  the  so-called  Itala,  cf.  Bianchini,  Vindicice 
canon.  SS.,  Rome,  1740,  and  against  him  J.  C.  Mittenzwey,  Diss,  antiblanch- 
iniana,  L.  1760.     Cf.  also  §§  323,  517. 

455.  Only  gradually  did  the  work  of  the  learned  and  anx- 
iously orthodox  monk  of  Bethlehem  make  its  way  against  the 
jealously  opposing  spirit  of  the  age.  Rome  could  only  foster 
and  cherish  it  in  silence,  not  yet  authoritatively  introduce  it, 
and  even  Gregory  the  Great,  to  whom  it  owes  its  final  adop- 
tion, only  introduced  it  by  strategy,  and  did  not  accomplish 
his  object  directly  by  means  of  a  decretal.  Notwithstanding 
the  partially  hostile  relations  of  the  old  and  new  Bible,  which 
continued  for  centuries,  there  could  not  fail  to  be  a  mingling 
of  the  two  texts,  since  custom  and  personal  inclination  vied 
with  clearer  insight  in  inviting  to  arbitrary  changes  on  both 
sides.  When  at  hist  the  new  edition  became  the  common  one, 
a  prerogative  which  has  clung  to  it  as  a  proper  name,  it  was 
no  longer  what  it  was  at  first. 


VULGATE.  473 

Evidence  for  the  gradual  adoption  of  Jerome's  version  collected  by  Hody, 
III.  2  ;  L.  van  Ess,  p.  134  ft.  ;  Fritzsche,  I.  c,  p.  435  ff.  It  shows  that  in 
quotations,  commentaries,  etc.,  sometimes  it  and  sometimes  the  old  version 
was  used,  probably  as  each  writer  was  accustomed  or  had  opportunity.  Ex- 
plicit judgments  are  rare.  Yet  the  few  that  occur  are  in  favor  of  the 
emendatior  translatio  ex  hehrceo  ;  the  learning  of  Jerome  inspired  respect,  and 
the  farther  down  in  time,  the  greater  became  the  cloud  about  his  head.  But 
Gregory  the  Great  (f  604)  still  Avrites,  Prcef.  in  Job. :  Novum  translationem 
edissero  sed  ut  comprobationis  causa  exigit  nunc  novam  nunc  veterem  per  testi- 
monia  assumo  ut  quia  sedes  apostolica  cui  prcesideo  utraque  utitur.  From  Isidor. 
Pelus.,  Ojfic.,  I.  12  :  Hieronymi  editione  generaliter  omnes  ecclesice  utuntur,  one 
might  perhaps  infer  at  least  a  general  adoption  in  Spain.  In  other  countries 
traces  of  the  old  version  are  still  found  late  in  the  Middle  Ages,  especially 
among  the  Anglo-Saxons,  among  whom  the  new  scarcely  found  entrance  at 
all.     Cf.  §  462. 

It  should  not  be  considered  strange  that  the  different  texts  became  min- 
gled ;  many  a  one  might  honestly  correct  liis  old  Bible  from  the  new,  or  in- 
troduce into  his  new  one  readmgs  from  the  old  famihar  one  (§  368).  Most 
were  doubtless  wholly  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Jerome  had  edited  two 
wholly  different  Bibles,  and  these  two  texts  might  likewise  be  mingled. 
Bede,  De  tempp.  rat.,  ch.  Ixvi.,  speaks  already,  beside  these,  of  an  ex  utriusque 
codd.  commixtum  opus  ;  and  Walafrid  Strabo,  Prcef.  in  Jerem.,  warns  ne  quis- 
quam  alterum  ex  altera  velii  emendare. 

A  classification  of  writers  into  those  who  use  the  Itala  and  those  who  use 
Jerome  is  attempted  by  Kaulen,  p.  193  ff.,  but  is  very  difficult  from  the 
state  of  their  text.  Even  among  exegetes  the  matter  is  not  certain.  The 
same  author,  p.  199,  points  out  a  peculiar  combination  of  the  two  transla- 
tions in  the  liturgies. 

456.  Since  neither  industry  nor  intellectual  power  was  able 
to  protect  the  sacred  books  in  the  form  once  given  them,  and 
yet  the  Church  had  enjoined  this  precise  form,  it  remained  the 
endless  task  of  the  Middle  Ages  to  keep  in  check  by  continual 
correction  a  confusion  which  no  one  could  longer  overcome. 
Temporal  and  ecclesiastical  princes  undertook  it ;  individual 
scholars  applied  their  powers  to  it ;  the  work  was  handed 
down  through  whole  societies.  The  multitude  of  helpers  in- 
terfered with  the  result,  party  jealousy  was  involved,  and  unity 
and  order  reigned  in  the  text,  as  in  the  Church,  only  in  appear- 
ance and  name. 

Cassiodorus,  De  instit.  div.  litt.,  in  the  preface,  gives  a  full  account  of  his 
labors  on  the  text  ;  they  really  related,  however,  not  so  much  to  the  restora- 
tion of  authentic  readings  as  to  correct  jjunctuation  and  orthography. 

It  was  not  until  the  time  of  Charlemagne  that  a  beginning  was  made  with 
the  criticism  of  the  text,  — at  the  command  and  with  the  cooperation  of  the 
emperor  himself,  in  particular  with  the  assistance  of  Alcuin.  Preface  to  the 
Homiliarium  P.  Diaconi :  Jampridem  universes  V.  et  N.  T.  libros  librariorum 
imperitia  depravatos  examussim  correximus.  Capitul.  regg.  franc,  VI.  227: 
PrcEcipimus  ut  in  ecclesiis  lihri  canonici  veraces  habeantur.  The  correction  of 
MSS.  seems  to  have  been  a  favorite  occupation  of  the  emperor  in  his  old 
age,  though  it  was  not  done  (Theganus,  AnnaL,  in  Duchesne,  Script.,  II. 
277)  cum  grcecis  et  syris,  but  simply  by  the  aid  of  older  MSS. 

Several  other  similar  works  were  undertaken  in  the  Middle  Ages,  indeed 
new  ones  were  continually  needed :  in  the  eleventh  century  by  Lanfranc, 


474  HISTORY   OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  the  twelfth  by  Stephen,  Abbot  of  Citeaux,  and 
the  Roman  Cardinal  Nicolai. 

From  the  thirteenth  century  begin  the  Correctoria  hiblica  (biblke),  i.  e.  col- 
lections of  variants  in  the  margui,  or  separately,  emendations  from  MSS.  or 
quotations  also  from  the  original  text,  elements  of  a  Christian  Masora,  by 
the  Dominicans  (Hugo  a  S.  Caro),  by  the  Sorbonne  at  Paris,  by  Minorites 
(by  Carthusians  ?),  who  were  m  consequence  decried  and  attacked  by  one 
another,  and  doubtless  often  did  make  bad  work  (Roger  Bacon,  Ep.  ad 
Clement  IV.,  in  Van  Ess,  p.  151).  There  is  printed  of  tliem  only:  Correc- 
torium  biblicB  cum  quarundcm  dijficilium  locutionum  luculenta  inter pretatione,  by 
the  Dominican  Magdalius  Jacobus  of  Gouda,  Col.  1508,  the  contents  of 
which,  however,  are  much  more  exegetical  than  critical.  On  the  author  see 
J.  H.  a  Seelen,  Meditt.  exeg.,  I.  605.  On  the  Correctoria  in  general,  see 
Rosenmuller,  Hist,  interpr.,  V.  233  ;  A.  Dressel,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
18G5,  II.  ;  Kaulen,  p.  244  fp. 

It  would  be  well  if  some  one  would  undertake  the  task  of  sifting  the  crit- 
ical apparatus  for  the  Vulgate  and  classifying  it  by  families  ;  thus  far  critics 
have  only  spoken  at  random  of  Alcuinic  MSS.,  etc.  The  oldest  and  most 
important  MSS.  of  Jerome's  version  are,  for  the  N.  T.  :  Cod.  Amiatinus,  at 
Florence,  the  whole  N.  T.,  edited  by  Tischendorf,  1854  [also  by  Tregelles, 
in  his  edition  of  the  Gk.  Test.,  with  the  variations  of  tlie  Clementine  text]  ; 
the  variants  previously  by  Fleck,  in  his  own  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  1840  ; 
Cod.  Fuldensis  and  Cod.  Toletanus,  likewise  the  whole  N.  T.  ;  the  former  has 
the  Gospels  in  the  form  of  a  harmony.  (Ed.  E.  Ranke,  Marb.  1868.)  The 
Gospels  alone.  Cod.  S.  Emmerami,  at  Munich,  Cod.  Forojuliensis,  partly  at 
Venice  and  partly  at  Prague,  printed  in  Bianchini  (cf.  §  351);  and  the  Latin 
version  in  Cod.  A  (§  392)  at  St.  Gall.  On  particular  important  MSS.  see 
Hug,  in  the  Freib.  Zeitschr.,  1828,  II.  ;  Harenberg,  in  the  Bibl.  Hag.,  I.  201; 
C.  L.  Bauer,  in  the  Repert.,  XVII.  ;  Fleck,  Reise,  II.  1,  p.  153  ;  S.  Seemiller, 
De  cod.  Ingolst.,  1784  ;  C.  Sanftl,  De  cod.  S.  Emmerami,  1786  ;  Kaulen,  p. 
216  If. 

457.  Yet  the  Vulgate  remained  the  church  version  of  the 
whole  West.  What  had  once  been  founded  in  poUtical  condi- 
tions, ecclesiastical  policy  still  retained,  even  when  for  a  long 
time,  outside  the  ecclesiastical  realm,  new  nationalities  were 
arising  and  gradually  growing  strong  in  each  country,  and 
forming  for  themselves  new  languages  of  their  own,  before 
which  the  Latin  was  soon  forgotten.  In  the  countries  where 
the  Celtic  and  Iberian  stocks  were  in  the  majority,  and  conse- 
quently in  Italy  itself,  they  were  properly  only  different  dialects 
of  the  old  Roman  speech  which  were  taking  the  place  of  the 
Latin,  and  this  fact,  together  with  others,  may,  at  least  to  the 
view  of  scholars,  have  prevented  the  need  of  a  new  translation 
of  the  Bible  from  becoming  a  vital  one  so  soon.  In  Africa, 
Roman  and  Christian  culture  were  soon  lost  together.  And  the 
German  nationality  in  the  North,  though  thoroughly  averse 
from  the  Roman  genius,  ripened  to  higher  civilization  but 
slowly. 

The  farther  we  go  back  in  time,  the  more  closely  connected  is  the  history 
of  language  and  civilization  with  that  of  the  Bible.  For  precisely  this  rear 
son  we  must  confine  ourselves  to  more  general  hints.  The  utter  impotence 
of  the  Celtic  civilization  against  the  Roman  is  clear  from  the  unrestrained 


DARK  AGES.  475 

advance  of  the  Latin  language,  even  after  the  migration  of  the  people.  Its 
transformation  took  place  very  slowly,  and  would  have  hindered  rather  than 
helped  great  literary  works,  like  a  translation  of  the  Bible,  during  the  next 
succeeding  centuries,  even  had  the  forms  of  worship,  which  were  becoming 
more  and  more  stereotyped,  and  the  special  tendencies  of  the  religious  spirit, 
made  them  a  necessity. 

458.  At  the  close  of  this  period,  therefore,  we  find  in  exist- 
ence a  not  inconsiderable  number  of  versions  of  the  Bible  in 
the  princijjal  languages  of  the  Christian  world.  And  yet  it 
cannot  be  said  that  the  Scriptures  were  very  widely  sjjread 
among  the  people.  Not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  in  many 
countries  the  language  in  which  alone  they  were  accessible  was 
no  longer  understood,  even  where  this  hindrance  did  not  exist, 
they  served  in  but  very  slight  degree,  through  their  public  read- 
ing, the  purpose  of  a  meagre  religious  instructi(jn.  God's  word 
had  become  dear.  Yet  we  would  not  forget  that,  as  modern 
civilization  in  general  began  with  Christianity,  so  in  the  case  of 
most  of  the  peoples  thus  far  mentioned  their  national  literature 
began  with  these  versions,  which,  indeed,  were  frequently 
obliged  first  to  create  the  alphabet  itself. 

We  take  our  stand,  for  this  retrospect,  in  the  flourishmg  period  of  the 
Carlovingians  and  Abbasides.  In  the  West  the  Latin  was  just  becoming, 
instead  of  a  lingua  rustica,  a  new  vernacular,  in  its  original  form  a  language 
of  scholars,  the  Latin  Bible  a  closed  book,  and  the  German  mind  was  pre- 
paring to  open  it  again.  In  the  East  the  world  was  divided  between  the 
conquering  Arabic  and  the  vanishing  Greek  tongues  ;  tlie  Syriac  and  the 
Coptic  soon  became  silent  ;  the  Ethiopic  and  Armenian  do  not  come  into 
consideration  because  of  their  remoteness  ;  but  here  as  well  as  in  the  West 
the  advantage  of  possessing  the  Bible  in  the  language  of  the  people  was  lost 
through  the  wretched  state  of  political  and  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

459.  Nevertheless  the  barbarism  which  weighed  upon  all 
classes  of  society,  and  the  apathy  of  those  wlio  should  have 
kept  it  in  check,  could  not  prevent  the  need  of  better  spiritual 
nourishment  from  being  felt  everywhere.  While  the  East, 
groaning  under  the  rod  of  foreign  domination,  or  under  the 
more  miserable  yoke  of  a  timid  and  pitiful  native  rule,  was 
seeing  the  seeds  of  its  future  choked  by  all  kinds  of  despotism, 
the  West  was  painfully  passing  through  its  period  of  transfor- 
mation. But  at  its  close  it  found  itself  renewed  and  in  pos- 
session of  a  vigor  such  as  it  never  had  had  in  the  noblest  days 
of  antiquity.  The  history  of  the  versions  of  the  Bible  is  one 
of  the  measures  of  this  happy  change. 

J.  W.  Janus,  Barharies  medli  CBvi  in  contemptu  SS.  conspicua,  Vit.  1721. 

In  the  Protestant  ideas  of  the  suppression  by  the  clergy  of  the  reading  of 
the  Bible  in  the  Middle  Ages,  which  were  used  in  and  in  part  arose  from 
controversy,  there  is  much  that  is  exaggerated.  They  doubtless  studied  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  in  their  way  ;  they  withheld  them  from  the  people, 
partly  because  the  means  of  circulating  them  were  actually  wantmg,  partly 
because,  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  time,  they  would  certainly  not  have 


476  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

been  able  to  understand  them.  But  the  accompanying  of  this  withholding 
by  legal  penalties  for  transgression,  and  the  addition  to  the  discouragement 
of  formal  prohibition,  even  the  most  skillful  Catholic  apologetics  (R.  Simon, 
N.  T.  verss.,  ch.  i.,  ii.  ;  Nouv.  rem.,  II.  ch.  xxii.  ti'.;  Biuterim,  De  lingua  N.  T., 
pp.  9-1-45  ;  Freib.  Zeitschr.,  1842,  VII.  p.  3  ff.  ;  Welte,  in  the  Tub.  Quar- 
talschr.,  1848,  I.,  and  others)  will  never  be  able  to  justify.  Cf.  in  general  T. 
G.  Hegelmaier,  De  libero  Scr.  usu  plebi  chr.  diu  denegato,  Tiib.  1783  ;  his 
Gesch.  des  Bibelverbots,  Ulm,  1783  ;  Rivet,  Isag.,  p.  183  ft".  ;  Ussher,  §  4G0  ; 
Herzog,  Art.  Bibellesen,  in  his  Theol.  Encykl. ;  D.  Erdman,  Bibelnolh  und 
Bibeloerbot  in  der  Kirche  des  Mittelalttrs,  B.  1858. 

In  this  portion  of  the  history,  as  in  many  other  relations,  the  Middle  Ages 
(sixth  to  fifteenth  centuries)  may  be  divided  into  two  periods,  the  middle  of 
the  twelfth  century  forming  the  pohit  of  division  betv/een  them.  From  that 
point  on  the  mental  (ecclesiastical,  religious,  literary,  political)  movement  of 
the  Western  European  peoples  and  their  striving  after  emancipation  can  be 
clearly  recognized. 

460.  We  enter  here  a  new  field,  riclier  than  that  just  left  in 
phenomena  and  events,  and  of  more  general  interest.  It  was 
not  the  liturgical  necessity  which  called  forth  these  phenomena, 
but  at  first  the  dark  longing  of  individuals  for  edilication,  a 
thirst  for  the  long-missed  fountain ;  afterward  the  mighty 
spirit  of  the  century,  which  sought  a  weapon  to  dislodge  the 
hierarchy  from  its  stronghold ;  finally  the  holy  zeal  of  all 
Christendom,  which,  with  the  same  weapon,  but  no  longer 
violently,  goes  on  its  peace-bringing  expedition  of  conquest 
around  the  world.  Thus,  in  three  periods,  and  in  ever-widen- 
ing spheres,  runs  the  history  of  the  modern  versions  of  the 
Bible,  endlessly  varied  as  to  source,  value,  and  acceptance. 

Beside  the  works  cited  in  §§  395,  425,  cf.  also  James  Ussher,  Hist.,  etc. 
(§  289)  ;  P.  H.  Schuler,  Geschichte  der  populdren  Schrifterklarung  unter  den 
Christen,  Tiib.  1787,  2  vols.  ;  Meyer's  Gesch.  der  Schrifterklarung,  passim; 
Rosenmiiller's  Handb.  der  Liter.,  Ft.  IV. 

Very  much  may  be  learned,  also,  from  the  catalogues  of  various  collec- 
tions of  Bibles,  e.  g.,  that  of  Brunswick,  by  Ludolf  O.  Knoch,  1752,  and  ful- 
ler, Hann.  1749  fP.  10  Pts.  ;  the  Wernigerode,  17G6  ;  the  Duke  of  Wtirtem- 
berg's,  formerly  Lork's,  by  J.  G.  C.  Adler,  1787  ;  the  library  of  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  ;  and  those  of  private  individuals  :  J.  G.  Palm, 
1735  ;  J.  M.  Goze,  1777  ;  Josias  Lork  (Bibelgeschichte,  I.,  II.,  1779  f.)  ;  Duke 
of  Sussex,  1827  ;  as  well  as  from  catalogues  of  auctions,  e.  g.,  by  S.  J.  Baum- 
garten,  J.  S.  Mori,  J.  J.  Griesbach,  J.  A.  Ntisselt,  especially  F.  Miinter, 
J.  D.  Kieffer,  Silv.  de  Sacy,  etc.  Baumgarten  has  also,  with  the  help  of 
others  (e.  g.,  of  Semler)  edited  two  works  on  his  own  library  {Nachrichten  von 
einer  Hallischen  Bibliothek,  1748  ff.,  8  Pts.,  and  Nachrichten  von  merkwiirdigen 
Buchern,  1752  ff.,  12  Pts.),  in  which  are  many  valuable  notes  for  the  history 
of  the  Bible.  Much  in  the  following  account  I  draw  from  my  own  collec- 
tion of  Bibles,  as  was  the  case  in  great  part  with  the  foregoing.  \_The  Bible 
of  Every  Land,  Bagster,  Lond.  1848.] 

461.  One  thing  more  should  be  noticed  by  way  of  preface. 
In  the  period  which  we  are  now  about  to  traverse  we  shall  be 
unable  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  history  of  that  method  of 
circulating  the  Scriptures  which  makes  a  strict  adherence  to 


ANGLO-SAXON.  477 

tLe  text  its  law  in  rendering  into  another  language.  It  will 
appear,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  first  attempts  at  this  work 
almost  invariably  disregarded  this  law,  and  often  even  preferred 
the  metrical  style,  because  originally  designed  not  for  the  needs 
of  the  learned,  but  for  the  edification  of  the  people,  which  it 
was  thought  could  more  easily  be  effected  by  greater  freedom. 
Nevertheless,  this  history  should  make  it  a  rule,  in  its  further 
course,  and  as  soon  as  the  idea  of  the  canon  has  again  come 
into  force,  to  confine  itself  to  those  phenomena  which  have  re- 
gard to  this  idea,  passing  over  those  which  aim  to  give  to  the 
people  Christian  ideas  in  biblical  dress  but  in  uncanonical 
form.  The  nature  of  the  subject  and  its  development  justi- 
fies this  distinction  and  demands  it. 

The  distinction  is  just  as  imperative  here  as  in  the  beginning  of  onr  First 
Book  ;  so  that  only  those  can  disapprove  our  plan  who  still  treat  the  history 
of  the  N.  T.  as  if  the  collection  existed  before  its  conijjonents.  In  the  Mid- 
dle Ages  the  idea  of  the  canon  practically  did  not  exist  at  all  (§  329),  and 
the  first  requisite  was  to  bring  some  knowledge  of  a  biblical  kind  to  the  peo- 
ple in  their  own  language.  This  was  naturally  done,  not  immediately  by 
complete  and  accurate  Bibles,  but  by  such  adaptations  as,  in  extent  and  form, 
could  commend  themselves  to  them. 

Here  belong  (1.)  Rhyme-Bibles,  historical  in  contents,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  from  Genesis  and  other  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.  as  well  as  from 
the  Gospels;  (2.)  Historical  Bibles,  following  the  text  (of  the  Vulgate)  now 
closely,  now  more  freely,  in  part  extracting,  in  part  embellishing  with  apoc- 
ryphal additions,  m  part  supplementing  from  ancient  profane  history,  which 
as  to  mass  of  material  constituted  but  the  smaller  part  of  what  was  known  of 
antiquity.  Ed.  Reuss,  Art.  Historienbibel,  in  Herzog's  Encyli.  (3.)  Anno- 
tated Bibles  ;  inasmuch  as  much  of  Scripture  was  unintelligible  to  the  peo- 
ple without  interpretation,  for  the  time  the  patristic  glosses  were  themselves 
Sacred  Scripture.  (4.)  Psalms  ;  the  book  of  the  Bible  which  was  first  and 
oftenest  literally  translated  ;  with  it,  in  the  form  of  an  appendix,  usually  a 
number  of  Cantica  from  the  O.  and  N.  T.,  on  which  more  particularly  see 
Strassb.  Beitr.,  VI.  66  ;  Revue,  Febr.  1857. 

Translations  of  the  most  recent  period,  made  after  the  introduction  of  an 
accredited  church  version,  properly  belong  in  the  Fifth  Book,  as  having  an 
exegetical  end  in  view,  and  yet  can  only  be  entitled  to  mention  there  from 
their  intrinsic  value.  Yet  it  has  been  borne  in  mind  that  many  of  tliem 
have  been  intended  to  imjjrove  the  church  versions  or  to  displace  them,  and 
so  they  have  in  part  found  their  place  in  the  history  of  these  latter, 

462.  To  the  Germanic  mind  and  language  belongs  the 
credit  of  having  taken  the  first  step  toward  a  better  state  of 
things.  We  do  not  refer  to  the  Goths,  whose  independent  de- 
velopment in  the  West  was  soon  arrested  and  brought  to  noth- 
ing. In  fact,  their  German  Bible  was  a  fruit  of  Byzantine  life, 
and  not  a  graft  upon  the  Roman  tree.  But  another  people  of 
German  speech  actually  and  consciously  broke  through  the 
papal  restriction  of  language,  and  that  in  the  very  land  which 
to-day  still  claims  to  be  a  home  of  ecclesiastical  freedom. 
These  were  the  Anglo-Saxons  settled  in  Britain,  whose  monks 


478  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

and  missionaries  were  engaged  for  several  centuries  in  intro- 
ducing in  wider  circles  also,  in  the  primeval  forests  of  the  Rhine 
and  the  Weser,  the  Gospel,  civilization,  and  agriculture.  Af- 
ter the  eighth  century  several  attempts  at  tianslation  were 
made  among  them,  of  which  fragments  are  still  extant ;  but 
unfortunately  here  also  the  pressing  in  of  Roman  speech  and 
culture  soon  destroyed  the  tender  germs  of  a  new  ecclesiastical 
life  and  made  them  unfruitful. 

Legend  of  the  peasant  Ctedmon  (Bede,  Hist.,  IV.  24),  who  was  made  a 
poet  by  revelation,  and  is  said  to  have  put  the  whole  biblical  history  into 
verse.  There  is  extant  of  it  only  the  beginning  (Genesis)  and  small  frag- 
ments of  the  Gospels  and  of  the  end  of  things,  in  a  diffuse  paraphrasing  style, 
not  altogether  like  that  of  the  Heliand,  which  has  been  regarded  as  a  frag- 
ment of  it  (§  463).  Ccedmon's  Metrical  Paraphrase  of  Parts  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  in  Anglo-Saxon,  with  an  English  Translation  and  Notes,  by  B. 
Thorpe,  London,  1832.  Cf.  also  H.  Leo's  Angelsdchs.  Sprachprohen,  Halle, 
1838  ;  Ccedmon's  bibl.  Dichtungen,  by  C.  W.  Bouterweck,  Elb.  1849,  2  vols. ; 
Ccedmon's  Schopfung  und  Abfall  der  Engel,  translated  by  J.  P.  E.  Greverus, 
Oldenb.  1852. 

Proper  translations,  in  part  also  mere  historical  adaptations  (from  the  pre- 
Jeromic  Latin  text?),  of  the  eighth  century  and  later,  are  ascribed,  by  tra- 
dition, to  Bede,  Aethelstan,  Aeldred,  Aelfric,  even  to  King  Aelfred.  Printed: 
portions  of  the  Gospels,  by  Th.  Marshall,  1665,  with  the  original  edition  of 
Ulfilas  (§  445)  ;  Heptateuchus,  liber  Job  et  evang.  Nicodemi  anglo-saxonice, 
histories  Judith  fragm.  dano-saxonice,  ed.  E.  Thwaites,  Oxf.  1698  ;  the  Gos- 
pels by  B.  Thorpe,  1842  ;  the  Psalms  (partly  metrical),  the  same,  1835  ; 
also  1640  by  J.  Spelman.  [Jos.  Bosworth,  The  Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon  Gos- 
pels in  Parallel  Columns  toith  the  Versions  of  Wycliffe  and  Tyndale,  2d  ed. 
Lond.  1874.]  There  is  more  still  in  MS.  at  London  and  Oxford,  but  of  im- 
portance only  for  the  philologist.  Special  mention  is  due  the  version  of  the 
Gospels  restored  by  C.  W.  Bouterweck  from  interlinear  glosses  in  the  North- 
umbrian dialect  of  the  twelfth  century  in  the  so-called  Codex  of  St.  Cud- 
bert  at  Oxford,  Giitersloh,  1857.  [Anglo-Saxon  and  Northumbrian  Version 
of  the  Gospels,  published  at  the  University  Press,  Cambridge,  England  : 
St.  Matthew,  ed.  Kemble  and  Hardwick,  1858  ;  St.  Mark,  ed.  W.  W.  Skeat, 
1871  ;  St.  Luke,  by  the  same,  1874  ;  St.  John,  by  the  same,  1878.  "  The 
standard  edition."     (Schaff)] 

Cf.  in  general  Ussher,  Hist,  controv.,  pp.  102  ff.,  349  ff.,  465  ;  Alter,  in  the 
Memorab.,  VI.  190  ;  VIII.  194  ;  Pfannkuche,  in  the  Gutting.  Bibl.,  III.  609  ; 
Ed.  Dietrich,  in  Niedner's  Zeitschr.,  1855,  IV.  495  ff. 

463.  Not  until  a  century  later  did  the  German  mother  coun- 
try also  begin  to  take  hold  of  the  matter.  What  some  writers 
of  the  Middle  Ages  say,  and  modeim  writers  have  repeated 
without  proof,  of  German  Bibles  which  Charlemagne  or  his 
son  Louis  are  said  to  have  caused  to  be  prepared,  is  based  upon 
a  misunderstanding.  The  real  beginning  of  this  work  was 
made  by  sacred  poetry,  at  the  period  when  the  glory  of  the 
Carlovingians  was  already  beginning  to  wane,  with  the  life  of 
Christ  the  Saviour,  which  was  told  according  to  the  Gospels, 
but  not  without  embellishment,  and  interspersed  with  edifica- 
tory  remarks.    It  was  afterward  treated  in  prose  also,  after  the 


ANGLO-SAXON  —  GERMAN.  479 

model  of  a  Latin  harmony.  Most  attractive  next  to  this  were 
the  beautiful  narratives  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  mysteries  of 
the  Canticles,  and  especially  the  book  of  the  Psalms,  which 
met  as  nothing  else  could  do  the  wants  of  the  spirit  unsatisfied 
by  the  world.  The  oldest  of  these  works  originated  in  the 
upper  and  middle  valley  of  the  Rhine,  but  the  language  and 
faith  of  the  northern  lowlands  is  not  unrepi-esented. 

The  legend  of  German  translations  by  and  for  Charlemagne  arises  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  at  once  obtams  a  definite  form  (Hrabanus,  Hajano,  and 
Walafrid,  807  ;  cf .  Flacius,  Pnef.  ad  Otfrid. ;  Ussher,  De  script,  vernac,  p. 
109  ff.),  and  is  variously  embellished  ;  but  it  is  wholly  unknown  to  the  con- 
temporary historians,  and  is  based  upon  misunderstanding  of  the  commenda- 
tions by  the  emperor,  directed  to  the  clergy,  of  the  study  of  the  Bible  (in 
the  Vulgate) ;  see  Baluzius,  Capitul.,  II.  202,  237,  and  the  contemporaneous 
(^Conc.  Turon.,  813,  Can.  2,  17,  in  Mansi,  XIV.  85)  command  to  translate 
(impromptu)  the  homilies  read  into  the  language  of  the  people.  See  further 
my  Fragmens  Utt.  et  crit.  relatifs  a  Vhist.  de  la  Bible  Fram^aise.  (Revue,  II. 
Iff.) 

For  Louis  the  Pious  there  has  really  no  evidence  been  found  except  a  pas- 
sage in  Flacius  Illyr.,  Catal.  testium  veritatis,  ed.  1562,  p.  93,  entitled  Prcefa- 
tio  in  lihrum  antiquum  lingua  sazonica  scriptum,  whose  origin  is  unknown, 
whose  contents  is  a  strange  mixture  of  the  legend  of  Cfedmon  with  the  de- 
scription of  the  poena  of  Otfried,  and  which  declares  that  a  Saxon  poet  at 
the  command  of  the  emperor  rendered  the  whole  Bible  into  verse.  The 
usual  view  now  is  (Schmeller,  Heliand,  II.  14,  and  others)  that  the  reference 
is  to  the  Heliand,  but  that  this  is  only  a  fragment  of  a  larger  work.  For  my 
reasons  to  the  contrary,  see  I.  c,  p.  11  ff. 

In  the  ninth  century  belong  :  a  rhymed  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  in  High 
German,  interspersed  with  mystical  reflections,  now  known  under  the  name 
of  Krist,  by  Otfried  of  Weissenburg,  in  lower  Alsace,  about  860.  Editions  by 
M.  Flacius,  1571,  8°  ;  also  in  J.  Schilter's  Thes.  antiqq.  teuton.  (Ulm,  1727,  3 
vols,  fob),  I.  ;  best  by  E.  G.  Graff,  Kon.  1831,  4°  ;  also  with  Introduction  and 
other  additions  by  J.  Kelle,  Regensb.  1856  ;  Bonner  Bruchstucke  von  Otfried, 
ed.  H.  Hoffmann,  1821  ;  rendered  into  New  High  German  by  G.  Rapp, 
Stuttg.  1858.  See  Oberlin,  Alsaiia  literata,  I.  17  ft'.  ;  G.  C.  Dsetrius,  Otfri- 
dus  monachus  evv.  interpres,  Helmst.  1 717  ;  Schmidt's  Bihl.,  I.  431  ;  Lechler, 
in  the  Studien,  1849,  I.,  II.  ;  F.  T.  Horning,  Conjectures  sur  la  Vie  d'Otfr.  de 
W.,  Str.  1833  ;  Lachmann,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encykl.,  III.  7  ;  D.  v. 
Stade,  Spec,  lectionum  francicarum  ex  Otfr.,  Stad.  1708. 

Heliand,  a  Low  Saxon  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  whose  author  is  unknown, 
and  whose  date  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty,  in  alliterative  verse, 
and  breathing  a  spirit  of  warlike  chivalry  rather  than  of  monastic  quiet. 
Edition  by  J.  A.  Schmeller,  Munich,  1830,  with  glossary,  1840,  2  vols.  4°  ;  by 
J.  R.  Kone,  with  translation,  Miinster,  1855  ;  New  High  German  by  C.  L. 
Kannegiesser,  B.  1847  ;  by  C.  W.  Grein  (alliterative)  Rint.  (1854),  1869  ;  by 
G.  Rapp,  Stuttg.  1856  ;  by  C.  Simrock,  Elb.  1856  ;  F.  E.  Ensfelder,  Etudes 
sur  le  Heliand,  Str.  1853  ;  H.  Middendorf,  Ueber  die  Zeit  dcr  Abfassung  des 
Heliand,  Miinster,  1862  (about  820)  ;  E.  Windiseh,  Der  Heliand  und  s. 
Quellen,  L.  1868  ;  Grein,  Die  Quellen  des  Heliand,  Cassel,  1869. 

Fragments  of  a  very  old  translation  of  Matthew,  from  a  MS.  of  the  mon- 
astery Monsee,  in  the  Vienna  library,  edited  by  S.  Endlicher  and  H.  Hoff- 
mann, 1834  ;  by  J.  F.  Massmann,  1841.  It  is  carried  back  by  some  into  the 
eighth  century,  yet  doubtless  only  because  of  the  rough  forms  of  speech, 
which  may  be  dialectic. 

A  translation  of  the  Gospel  Harmony  falsely  ascribed  to  Tatian,  which 


480  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

Victor  of  Capua,  in  the  sixth  century,  rendered  from  the  Greek  (of  Ammo- 
nius  ?)  ;  in  prose.  Editions  by  J.  P.  Palthen,  Greifsw.  1706,  4°  ;  also  in 
Schilter,  II.  ;  by  J.  A.  Schmeller  (first  partially,  1827),  Vienna,  1841,  4°  ; 
cf.  Hess,  Bihlioihek  der  h.  Gesch.,  II.  543. 

In  tlie  tentli  century  belongs  the  translation  of  the  Psalms  by  Notker  La- 
beo,  Abbot  of  St.  Gall  (980),  in  Schilter,  I.  There  are  in  existence,  how- 
ever, several  versions,  by  unknown  authors,  independent  of  one  another, 
named,  after  the  MSS.,  the  Triers,  the  Windberg,  edited  together,  but  not 
complete,  by  E.  G.  Graff,  Deutsche  InterUnearversionen  der  Psalmen,  Quedl. 
1839.  Low  German  Psalms  of  the  Carlovingian  period,  by  F.  H.  v.  d.  Ha- 
gen,  Br.  1818  ;  Low  Saxon  Psalters,  see  also  J.  H.  a  Seelen,  Meditt.  exeg., 
II.  517  ;  Goze,  Merkw.  Bibeln,  II.  179. 

By  Williram  (Willeram)  of  Ebersberg  in  Bavaria  (c.  1080)  a  Latin  and  a 
German  paraphrase  of  the  Canticles,  the  latter  in  prose.  Editions  by  P. 
Merula,  Leyd.  1598  ;  by  M.  Freher,  Worms,  1631  ;  by  J.  G.  Scherz,  in 
Schilter's  Thes.,  I.  ;  by  H.  Hoffmann,  Br.  1827.  In  the  last  two  are  to  be 
found  several  smaller  fragments,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  etc.  ;  Baumgarten, 
Handh.,  IV.  283.  Williram's  translation  is  the  basis  of  the  mystic  exposi- 
tion of  the  Canticles  by  the  Abbesses  Rilind  and  Herrat  at  S.  Odilia  in  Al- 
sace (12th  cent.).     Edition  by  J.  Haupt,  Vienna,  1864. 

To  the  same  period  belongs  the  metrical  version  of  Genesis  and  a  part  of 
Exodus,  edited  by  H.  Hoffmann,  in  the  second  part  of  his  Fundgruhen  (a 
more  complete  and  somewhat  later  recension  of  this  work  edited  from  the 
Milstatt  MS.  by  J.  Dienier,  Vienna,  1862) ;  to  the  thirteenth  century,  finally, 
the  Chronicles  of  Rudolf  v.  Hohenems,  essentially  a  Rhyme-Bible,  which  is 
preserved  in  various  recensions  and  numerous  MSS.,  but  printed  from  one 
of  the  worst  (the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.,  etc.,  edited  by  G.  Scliiitze, 
Hamb.  1779,  2  vols.  4°);  see  A.  F.  C.  Vilmar,  Die  Weltchronik  des  R.  v. 
Ems,   Marb.  1839  ;  Massmann,  Die  Kaiserchronik,  III.  54. 

In  the  same  period  and  later  Psalters  nndtiply,  of  which  many  are  still 
preserved  in  MS.  and  differ  from  those  afterward  printed  ;  e.  g.,  one  in  the 
former  Strassburg  Library,  and  one  in  my  own  collection  (^Strassb.  Beitrage, 
VI.  54  ff.). 

Cf.  in  general  J.  B.  Ott,  Bericht  von  deutschen  Ueberss.  der  h.  S.  vor  der  Re- 
form., 1710  ;  with  additions  by  Breitinger  in  Simmler's  Samml.,  I.  359  ff.; 
Gervinus,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Nationalpoesie,  Pt.  I.  ;  R.  v.  Raumer,  Die 
Einwirkimg  des  Christenth.  auf  die  althochdeutsche  Sprache,  Stuttg.  1845  ; 
Griisse,  Literaturgesch.,  III.  285. 

464.  As  soon  as  the  language  liacl  become  accustomed  to 
the  subject,  and  inclination  had  grown  with  exercise,  it  could 
not  fail  that  a  more  complete  German  Bible  should  come  into 
existence.  But  when  and  by  whom  we  know  not.  It  may  be 
presumed  that  such  undertakings  were  not  numerous  ;  but  at 
least  two  classes,  wholly  unlike  each  other,  must  be  distin- 
guished, —  the  Historical  Bibles,  enriched  with  various  apoc- 
ryphal additions,  and  the  faithful  translation  of  the  Vulgate. 
The  former  class  left  out  the  purely  didactic  and  prophetical 
elements  of  Scripture,  and  was  doubtless  better  fitted  for  the 
edification  of  the  people  of  that  time,  but  with  an  advancing 
theological  consciousness  must  have  gone  out  of  use  as  insuffi- 
cient and  misleading.  The  latter,  existing  perhaps  in  but  one 
original  edition,  might,  as  it  spread,  change  and  improve  in 
idiom  according  to  time  and  place.     It  certainly  reaches  back 


GERMAN.  481 

to  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  While  it  was 
finding  its  way  to  the  people  and  being  copied  for  rich  burghers 
by  skillful  scholars,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  fostered  in 
monasteries.  Remains  of  it  are  among  the  rarest  of  literary 
treasures. 

Accounts  are  given  of  various  MSS.  of  a  Historical  Bible,  all  of  which, 
however,  appear  to  be  defective,  by  J.  F.  Mayer,  Diss.  Hamburg.,  VII.,  IX., 
and  in  the  appendix  to  his  history  of  Luther's  version  ;  Weller,  Altes  aus 
alien  Theilen  der  Geschidite,  II.  G27;  Riederer,  Nachrichten  zur  Kirchen-,  Ge- 
lehrten-,  und  Buchergeschlchte,  II.  7;  J.  M.  Goze,  Verzeichniss  of  his  collection 
of  rare  Bibles,  II.  156  ff.  ;  Merzdorf,  Bihlioth.  Utiterhh.,  Old.  1850,  p.  110  ;  H. 
Palm,  Einemittel/iochdeutsche  Hlstorienbibel  (in  his  own  possession),  Bi'esl.  18G7. 

I  have  instituted  a  thorough  comparison  of  the  earlier  known  copies  (the 
most  complete  is  in  my  own  possession)  in  the  Strassb.  theol.  Beltruge,  VI., 
where  the  existence  of  three  distinct  works  of  the  kind  is  shown,  one  of 
which  is  only  an  adaptation  of  Comestor  (§  533),  the  second  i-ather  a  Chroni- 
cle, but  the  tliird,  found  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  in  various  German  dia- 
lects (cf.  Massmann,  I.  c),  is  an  Old  German  Historical  Bible,  grown  up  in 
part  from  German  poetical  adaptations.  Among  these  latter  belong  also 
the  beautiful  Minnelieder,  lirst  made  known  by  1).  G.  S.  (Schober),  Augsb. 
1752  ;  afterward.  Herder,  in  his  Hohe  Lied,  and  Bartholmd,  Niirnb.  1827. 
The  idea  that  this  Historical  Bible  is  nothing  but  a  resolution  into  prose  of 
a  rhymed  German  original  is  to  be  rejected  altogether.  Whole  books  and 
long  passages  are  translated  literally  from  the  Vulgate. 

This  work  and  its  various  recensions  have  been  discussed  most  thoroughly 
and  fully  by  Tli.  Merzdorf,  who  has  edited  in  full  two  texts,  with  variants  : 
Die  deutschen  Historienbibeln  des  Mittelalters  nacli  Ifl  HSS.,  Tiib.  1870,  2 
vols,  (without  the  N.  T.,  which  is  usually  lacking). 

Accounts  of  various  MSS.  of  the  second  class,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Ger- 
man translation  of  the  Vulgate,  are  given  by  Lambecius,  Bihlioth.  Vindoh., 
II.  ;  J.  F.  Mayer,  Dins.  Hamb. ;  Weller,  I.  c,  II.  241  ;  Ott,  in  Simmler's 
Samml.,  I.  2,  3,  pp.  386,  713  ;  Hottinger,  Bibl.  quadrip.,  p.  140  ;  J.  Reiske, 
De  verss.  germ,  ante  Lutherum,  1697;  D.  G.  Schober,  Bericht  von  alien  deut- 
schen geschriebenen  Bibeln,  Schleiz,  1763  ;  J.  Nast,  Liter.  Nachricht  von  der 
hochdeutschen  Bibelubers.  welche  vor  mehr  ah  500  Jahren  in  den  Klbstern 
Deutschlands  ilblich  war  (?),  Stuttg.  1779  ;  J.  Kehrein,  Zur  Geschichte  der 
deutschen  Bibelubers.  vor  Luther,  Stuttg.  1851  ;  T.  Fritz,  Comin.  in  Ps.  civ., 
Arg.  1821,  p.  84  ;  J.  H.  a  Seelen,  Meditt.  exeg.,  II.  517-598  ;  C.  Schottgen, 
Nachricht  von  einem  alten  deutschen  MS.  der  Sprichvi.  u.  des  Prediger  Sal., 
Dr.  1746  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  interpr.,  V.  174  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch., 
XXI.  259.  —  Single  specimens  also  given  in  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1717,  p.  908, 
1718,  pp.  18,  171,  725.  —  There  are  but  few  whole  Bibles  extant ;  most  of 
the  MSS.  contain  only  single  books,  particularly  Gospels  and  the  Psalms. 
Riederer,  I.  c,  III.  9,  describes  a  MS.  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

Of  the  name  of  one  or  several  authors  we  have  no  certain  knowledge.  A 
MS.  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Leipzig  University  Library,  in  the  Middle  (Franeo- 
Thuringian)  Dialect,  proceeds  from  a  monk  Matthias  of  Beheim  (1343),  at 
Halle  a.  d.  Saale,  who  lias  often  been  regarded  as  the  translator  ;  the  text  is 
perhaps  somewhat  older  than  the  year  given,  but  already  has  the  chapter 
division  of  Cardinal  Hugo  ;  edited,  with  philological  apparatus,  by  R.  Bech- 
stein,  L.  1867.  The  other  names  which  occur  in  MSS.,  Nic.  Brakmut  of 
Girsperg  (near  Rappoltsweier),  in  the  Zurich  MS.  of  1472  described  in  Sim- 
ler,  and  Job.  Lichtenstern,  of  Munich,  are  those  of  copyists.  The  most  cele- 
brated copy  is  at  Vienna,  in  three  parchment  folios,  beautifully  adorned  with 
pictures,  written  in  1378  for  King  Wenzel. 
31 


482  HISTORY   OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

Low  Saxon  translations  existed  independently  of  the  High  German.  G. 
W.  Lorsbach,  Beschreibung  zweier  niedersiichsischen  Bibel-HSS.,  in  his  Archiv, 
II.  55-238  ;  Die  vier  Blicher  der  Konige,  aus  einer  oldenhurger  HS.,  edited  by 
Merzdorf,  1857. 

465.  It  would  almost  seem  as  if  even  greater  activity  should 
have  been  developed  in  France,  spurred  on  not  less  by  the 
opposition  of  the  spiritual  potentates  than  by  the  encourage- 
ment of  the  princes.  Unfortunately  the  history  is  still  more 
involved  in  obscurity,  partly  from  the  unfavorable  character  of 
the  earlier  periods,  in  consequence  of  which  many  documents 
have  been  destroyed,  partly  from  the  indolence  of  the  present, 
in  consequence  of  which  those  still  extant  remain  unused.  The 
beginning  of  the  work  can  no  longer  be  determined ;  yet  it 
appears  to  be  in  some  way  connected  with  the  religious  move- 
ment at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  and  beginning  of  the  thir- 
teenth century.  In  theory  never  absolutely  forbidden,  but  in 
reality  never  favored  and  often  suppressed,  the  popular  Bible 
became  here  for  the  first  time  a  party  issue  against  the  Church. 
General  mention  is  made  of  translations  of  the  Waldenses  and 
Albigenses,  but  not  all  that  is  still  extant  in  manuscript  in 
Southern  French  dialects  can  be  referred  to  these  with  com- 
plete certainty.  This  department  of  the  science  has  thus  far 
waited  in  vain  for  a  skilled  linguist  who  should  be  at  the  same 
time  well  versed  in  the  history  of  the  Church  and  interested 
in  the  history  of  the  Bible. 

Altogether  unsatisfactory,  and  little  based  upon  independent  investiga^ 
tlons  is  the  history  of  the  French  Bible  of  ancient  times  in  R.  Sunon's  Hist, 
du  V.  T.,  p.  331  ;  Disquiss.  crit.,  p.  198  ;  Hist,  des  versions,  p.  317;  and  Nouv. 
Obss.,  p.  142  ;  (Lallouette)  Histoire  des  traductions  franfaises,  P.  1692  (a 
controversial  pamphlet) ;  Le  Long,  Bibl.  sacra,  I.  325  ;  Lebeuf,  Recherches 
sur  les  anc.  trad,  en  I.  fran^aise,  in  the  Mem.  de  V Academic,  XVII.  ;  Hist, 
litt.  de  France,  VII.  53  ff.  ;  IX.  149  ;  Rosenmuller,  Handb.,  IV.  332  ;  Archi- 
nard.  Notice  sur  les  premieres  versions  en  langue  vulgaire,  Gen.  1839  ;  E.  Peta- 
vel.  La  Bible  en  France,  P.  1864.  As  bibliographical  catalogues  may  serve  : 
Paulm,  Paris,  Catalogue  des  MSS.fr.  de  la  Bibliotheque  du  roi,  7  vols,  (which, 
however,  nowhere  goes  into  the  text),  and  in  particular  Leroux  de  Lincy,  in 
the  Prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  books  of  the  Kings  (§  466).  —  Cf.  my 
Fragmens,  etc.  (§  463),  in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  II.,  IV.,  V.,  VI.,  XIV.,  as  well 
as  my  article  Romanische  Bibeliiberss.,  m  Herzog's  Encykl. 

With  what  is  said  in  §  330  cf.  the  Acta  concil.  Tolos.,  1229  QIansi,  XXIII. 
197),  Can.  xiv.  :  Prohibemus  etiam  ne  libros  V.  T.  aut  N.  laid  permittantur 
habere  nisi  forte  Psalterium  vel  breviarium  pro  divinis  officiis  aut  horas  b.  V. 
Marice  aliquis  ex  devotione  habere  velit.  Sed  ne  prceynissos  libros  habeant  in 
vulgari  iranslatos  arctissime  inkibemus.  More  strictly  still  the  Synods  of  Tar- 
ragona, 1234,  and  Beziers,  1246.  Unfortunately  these  prohibitions  are  the 
only  absolutely  certain  thing  we  know  of  Romance  versions  of  the  Bible  of 
the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century.  Their  sources,  their  extent,  their  age, 
their  history,  their  relations  to  one  another,  are  involved  in  deep  obscurity. 
No  influence  of  the  Greek  text  is  probal^le  ;  they  were  doubtless  paraphrases 
in  various  dialects,  including  Northern  French. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Romance  N.  T.  which  Fleck  (Reise,  II.  1,  p.  90)  dis- 


FRENCH.  483 

covered  in  the  library  of  the  Acad,  des  Arts  at  Lyons  (cf.  Gieseler,  II.  2,  ed. 
4,  p.  561,  and  especially  Cunitz,  in  the  Strassb.  theol.  Beitrdge,  IV.)  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  regarded  as  a  Catharic  production  (not  Piedmontese-Walden- 
sian),  particularly  from  the  ritual  supplement,  and  is  free  from  any  trace  of 
heresy  in  the  text. 

Tlae  common  assertions  that  there  were  Romance  versions  of  the  Bible 
long  before  Waldo  (Fiisslin,  I.  339  ;  Hegelmair,  Geschichte  des  Bibelverhots, 
p.  123  ;  Monastier,  Hist,  des  Vaudois,  I.  105  ;  Muston,  and  most  of  the  older 
historians  of  the  Waldensians)  are  certainly  true,  at  the  most,  only  when 
(and  hardly  even  then)  one  generalizes  the  term  completely  away  from  the 
Waldensians  projjerly  so  called.  As  respects  these,  I  have  shown  that  their 
oldest  records,  as  the  Nohla  leyczon,  are  acquainted  with  biblical  history  not 
from  Scripture,  but  from  tradition  ;  not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  these  rec- 
ords do  not  go  back  beyond  the  thirteenth  century,  accorduig  to  later  inves- 
tigations perhaps  not  even  so  far. 

The  tradition  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible  by  Peter  Waldo  (more  cor- 
rectly Waldes,  i.  e.,  son  of  Waldo,  as  the  ancient  witnesses  call  him)  reduces, 
upon  careful  consideration  of  the  most  ancient  evidence  (Gualter.  de  Mapes, 
De  nugis  curialium,  in  Ussher,  De  ckr.  eccl.  success.,  1682,  p.  112  ;  Steph.  de 
Borbone,  De  VII.  donis  Sp.  S.,  in  D'Argeutre,  I.  87;  Pseudo-Reinerius, 
Summa,  ch.  5  ;  Yvonet,  De  hceresi  pauperum  de  Lugduno,  in  Marten,  Thes. 
anecd.,  V.,  1777),  to  this,  that  Waldo,  a  rich  citizen  of  Lyons,  non  multuin 
literatus,  had  translated  for  his  own  instruction,  by  a  certain  grammarian, 
Stephen  of  Ansa  (yar.  lect.,  Emsa,  Evisa),  the  Gospels,  aliquot  (multos)  alios 
libros  hihlice  et  auctoritates  sanctorum  (Patrum),  which  a  priest,  Bernhard  of 
Ydros,  afterward  copied  from  his  dictation.  Whether  there  was  thus  formed 
a  textus  cum  glossa,  or  sententice  per  titulos  congregatce,  i.  e.,  a  collection  of  dicta 
prohantia,  the  evidence  does  not  agree. 

It  is  still  conceivable  that  the  more  complete  copies  which  were  certainly 
soon  in  the  hands  of  the  Waldenses  were  not  a  new  translation,  but  came 
from  the  Albigenses,  being  adapted  everywhere  to  the  dialect  of  the  locality. 
Such  are  already  known  to  Innocent  III.,  1199  (Epistt.,  ed.  Baluz.,  ii.  141, 
142,  I.  432  ft'.),  in  the  diocese  of  Metz  :  evangelia,  epp.  Pauli,  psalterium, 
moralia,  Job,  et  plures  alios  libros  in  gallico  sermone,  though  only  by  hearsay. 
But  it  is  ridiculous  to  carry  back  the  four  still  extant  Waldensian  MSS.  of 
the  N.  T.  (at  Ztirich,  Grenoble,  Dublin,  and  Paris,  Cod.  8086),  some  of 
which  certainly  wei-e  not  written  until  the  sixteenth  century,  and  the  last  of 
which  probably  does  not  belong  here  at  all,  into  the  twelfth  century,  and  to 
explain  their  peculiar  (i.  e.,  non-Clementine)  readings  as  the  results  of  Wal- 
do's learned  collations  :  W.  St.  Gilly,  The  Romaunt  Version  of  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,  loith  an  introductory  History  of  the  Version  anciently  in  use  among  the 
old  Waldenses,  Lond.  1848  ;  cf.  in  general  Ed.  Reuss,  Les  traductions  vau- 
doises  et  cathares,  in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  II.  321 ;  V.  321  ;  VI.  65.  It  is  there 
shown  that  the  text  of  the  Zurich  MS.  came  from  an  Erasmian  edition  ;  that 
not  in  the  Lyons  MS.  (Catharic),  but  probably  in  the  Dublin  and  Zurich 
MSS.  (Waldensian),  traces,  though  very  slight,  of  Catharic  theology  can  be 
recognized  ;  finally  that  in  these  MSS.  two  radically  different  translations 
are  contained,  the  latter  of  which  exists  in  two  recensions.  The  MSS.  of 
Grenoble  and  Paris  have  not  yet  been  investigated.  So  long  as  these  ver- 
sions are  not  printed  it  may  be  of  value  that  Herzog  has  copied  the  Dublin 
MS.  m  full  and  deposited  it  in  the  Berlin  library.  1  have  myself  copied 
many  portions  from  the  Lyons  and  Zurich  MSS.,  and  have  made  a  complete 
collation  of  both  wth  the  Vulgate.  The  passage  recently  printed  from  Cod. 
8086  (in  a  Berliner  philol.  Zeitschr.  (?),  known  to  me  only  from  an  isolated 
extract)  :  Lo  libre  de  Ester  la  reyna,  is  not  in  the  Waldensian  dialect. 

The  Canticles,  with  a  mystic  commentary,  in  a  Waldensian  translation,  af- 
ter a  Geneva  MS.,  with  variants  from  a  Dublin,  published  by  J.  J.  Herzog 
in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  hist.  Theol,  1861,  IV. 


484  HISTORY  OF  the  versions. 

466.  And  yet  such  a  one  could  not  but  be  richly  rewarded 
for  his  labor,  so  mimifold  and  unknown  are  the  treasures  still 
extant.  Every  province  took  part  in  the  work  of  translation  ; 
consequently  linguistic  monuments  of  all  regions  and  of  several 
centuries  are  to  be  found  among  them.  Poetical  adaptations 
of  the  biblical  material  alternate  with  others  in  prose  ;  free 
paraphrases  of  the  historical  portions,  also  mingled  with  addi- 
tions, with  literal  translations.  Among  the  latter  belong  in 
particular  a  noteworthy  series  of  Psalters.  History  names  sev- 
eral kings,  St.  Louis  and  Charles  the  Wise  in  particular,  who 
are  said  to  have  caused  the  Scriptures  to  be  translated,  but 
science  as  yet  has  no  means  of  coming  to  a  clear  conclusion  ; 
we  have  several  names,  but  nothing  certain.  There  was  very 
widely  spread  in  France  at  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages  a  work 
which  in  its  historical  portions,  after  the  scholastic  model, 
mingled  with  the  pure  word  of  Scripture  many  impure  addi- 
tions. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  French  bibliographers,  the  extant  translations  of 
the  Psalms  reach  back  into  the  eleventh  century  ;  but  great  obscurity  still 
hangs  over  this  question,  as  over  most  of  those  here  to  be  raised.  The  number 
of  MSS.  of  all  kinds  (Rhyme-Bibles,  Historical  Bibles,  translations  proper, 
with  and  without  glosses)  is  greater  in  France,  and  they  have  been  less  used, 
than  anywhere  else.  Purely  traditional  and  devoid  of  all  further  founda- 
tion is  what  is  related  of  translations  for  St.  Louis  (1250),  by  Jean  du 
Viguier  (1340),  Jean  de  Sy  (1350),  Jean  Vaudetar  (1372)  ;  for  Charles  V. 
(1380),  by  Raoul  de  Prailles  (Praelles,  Presle)  ;  by  Nic.  Oresme,  Bishop  of 
Lisieux,  etc.  These  data  can  never  be  of  any  significance  until  a  scholar  has 
studied  the  MSS.,  instead  of  being  content  to  confine  his  attention  to  minia^ 
tures  and  other  external  matters. 

More  fully  known  thus  far  are  a  translation  of  the  four  books  of  the 
Kings,  said  to  be  of  tlie  twelfth  century,  in  a  Northern  French  dialect,  pub- 
lished by  Leroux  de  Lincy,  1841,  4°,  and  a  (now  destroyed)  MS.  of  the  li- 
brary of  Strassburg,  containing,  in  a  similar  but  later  dialect,  the  Pentateuch, 
Joshua,  Judges,  with  extracts  from  the  Glossa  ordinaria  and  interlinearis 
(§  529),  and  the  remaining  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.,  together  with  the 
Psalms,  without  these,  described  by  me  in  the  Revue,  IV.  1.  The  Psalter  at 
least  is  saved  by  my  copy.  An  old  French  Psalter,  in  prose,  from  an  Oxford 
MS.,  and  a  metrical  one,  from  a  Parisian  MS.,  were  edited  by  Francisque 
Michel,  Oxf.  1860.  H.  Breymaim,  Introd.  aux  deux  livres  des  Machabees, 
trad.  fr.  du  ISme  siede,  Gott.  1868. 

Nearly  all  the  extant  MSS.  contain  a  somewhat  free,  but  in  the  main  faith- 
ful translation  of  the  Historical  Bible  (Historia  scholastica,  Histoire  escolastre) 
prepared  about  1170  by  the  Parisian  chancellor  Petrus  Comestor  (§  533), 
with  a  scholastic,  not  a  mystic,  commentary  ;  this  translation  was  by  a  cer- 
tain Canon,  Guiars  des  Moulins,  of  Picardy,  1294  ;  see  my  full  discussion  of 
it  in  the  Strassh.  Revue,  XIV.  1857.  It  is  there  shown  that  Guiars  added 
nothing  to  Comestor's  Latin  text  but  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  Job,  the 
Proverbs,  and  possibly  the  remaining  Solomonic  books,  at  least  Wisdom  and 
Sirach.  In  the  place  of  the  Maccabean  history  of  Comestor  he  inserted  a 
more  faithful  translation  of  the  Vulgate.  In  general,  however,  he  intro- 
duced into  the  text  of  the  Historia  scholastica  the  authentic  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate, which  is  wholly  lacking  in  Comestor.     Whether  he  also  adopted  the 


FRENCH  —  SPANISH.  485 

Acts  of  the  latter  is  still  uncertain.  Psalms,  Prophets,  Epistles,  were  certainly 
wanting,  but  in  the  course  of  the  fourteenth  century  were  added  to  the  work 
of  Coniestor-Guiars  in  a  simple,  unannotated,  literal  translation.  The  MSS. 
vary  in  the  different  position  of  these  additions,  and  also  in  their  number. 
For  some  have  a  complete  Job  and  the  four  Gospels  (instead  of  the  earlier 
annotated  harmony  of  Guiars).  Of  the  Apocalypse  the  different  MSS.  con- 
tain various  recensions,  with  and  without  glosses.  This  investigation  is 
based  for  the  present  upon  three  MSS.  at  Geneva,  one  at  Paris,  and  a  splen- 
did one  at  Jena,  which  stands  particularly  near  to  the  original  work  of 
Guiars.  As  to  the  origin  and  date  of  the  additions  to  Guiars,  nothing  can 
thus  far  be  made  out  except  that  they  certainly  do  not  belong  to  his  work. 
For  the  rest  my  work  is  nothing  less  than  conclusive.  For  the  carrying  out 
of  the  investigation  see  §  468. 

The  so-called  translation  of  Guil.  Le  Menand  is  only  an  adaptation  of  the 
Life  of  Jesus  by  the  Carthusian  Ludolf  of  Saxony. 

467.  Most  of  the  other  countries  of  New  Roman  Europe  also 
followed  this  movement.  But  history  has  everywhere  forgot- 
ten much  that  was  praiseworthy  or  given  only  doubtful  ac- 
counts of  it.  Spain  and  Poland  received  the  Bible  at  the  hands 
of  their  kings,  so  tradition  says,  —  surely  a  royal  gift.  Eng- 
land and  Bohemia  obtained  it  amid  the  throes  of  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal upheaval,  in  the  one  case  the  first  sign  of  an  awakening 
among  the  people,  in  the  other  consecrated  also  by  the  fiery 
test  of  martyrdom.  Other  information  is  less  definite  or  un- 
authentic. The  records  of  this  first  period  have  in  many 
places  perished,  or  have  only  in  scanty  measure  been  made  ac- 
cessible by  printing  and  criticism  to  the  investigator  and  col- 
lector. Of  the  spread  and  use  of  all  these  works  nothing  can 
be  ascertained,  and  the  Church  historian  learns  even  less  from 
them  for  his  purposes  than  the  mere  bibliophile. 

Traces  of  translations  of  the  Bible  into  various  Spanish  dialects  have  been 
previously  pointed  out,  but  little  that  is  certain  ;  cf.  R.  Simon,  Hist,  des  ver- 
sions, p.  493  ;  Gilly,  Romaunt  Version,  p.  70.  If  James  I.,  of  Arragon,  about 
1233,  prohibited  the  Bible  in  the  common  language  (Martene,  VII.  123  : 
statuitur  ne  aliquis  lihros  V.  vel  N.  T.  in  romancio  habeat,  et  si  quis  habeat  intra 
octo  dies  .  . .  tradat  eos  episcopo  comburendos),  this  agrees  very  well  with  the 
state  of  things  in  Southern  France  (§  465).  Nothing  so  old  seems  yet  to 
have  been  found  in  Spanish  libraries.  There  is  in  the  royal  library  at  Paris 
(Cod.  6831-33,  3  vols,  fol.)  a  manuscript  Bible  said  to  be  in  the  Catalonian 
dialect  (which  Muston  and  Gilly  reckon  among  the  Waldensian  monuments, 
failing  to  notice  the  diiferenee  in  language),  and  an  incomplete  O.  T.  differ- 
ent from  it  ;  neither  of  them  have  yet  been  closely  exammed,  but  they  are 
certainly  older  than  the  fifteenth  century  ;  cf.  J.  M.  Guardia,  in  the  Revue 
de  I'instr.  puhlique,  Apr.  1860.  Alphonso  X.,  of  Castile,  is  said  to  have  had 
the  Bible  translated  about  1260.  It  is  more  certain  that  the  Carthusian 
General,  Bonif.  Ferrer  (f  1417),  was  the  author  of  a  translation  of  the  Bible, 
of  which  Guardia  still  points  out  two  MSS.  ;  cf.  §  468.  F.  Perez  Bayer  also 
speaks  of  fragments  of  two  MSS.  of  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century 
in  his  possession,  but  without  giving  any  further  information  as  to  their  or- 
igin and  relationship.  (A  Notizia  de  biblia  del  sigh  XV.  en  la  casa  del  duque 
de  Alba,  Madr.  1847,  gives  an  account  of  a  Jewish  translation  of  the  0.  T. 
by  Rabbi  Mose  Arrajel.) 


486  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

A  Polish  Bible  translated  for  Hedwig,  Queen  of  Vladislaus  IV.,  1390,  of 
which,  howevei",  only  the  Psalter  now  exists,  or  perhaps  ever  did  exist. 
Published  by  Duuiu  (and  Kopitar),  1834.  Grasse,  Literaturgesch.,  V.  485, 
refers  to  another  ancient  Psalter,  and  to  a  fragment  of  the  O.  T.,  of  1455. 

English,  by  J.  Trevisa,  1357  (?)  ;  J.  Wiclitfe,  1380  ;  J.  Purvey,  ISUG  or 
1420.  Ussher,  I.  c,  p.  156  ff.  But  are  these  different  works  ?  Under 
Wicliffe's  name  (as  the  more  celebrated  ?)  an  Old  English  version  of  the 
N.  T.  was  printed  m  1721  by  J.  Lewis,  and  in  1810  by  H.  H.  Baber,  with  a 
historical  introduction  ;  also  in  Bagster's  English  Hexapla  (§  475),  and  again, 
Lond.  1847,  with  the  statement  Now  first  printed  from  a  coiitemporary  MS.  ; 
two  versions  printed  m  parallel  columns,  by  J.  Wicliffe  and  his  followers,  by 
Jos.  Forshall  and  F.  Madden,  Oxf.  1850.  —  A  monk,  Rich.  Rolle  (f  1349),  of 
Hampole,  is  named  as  translator  of  the  Psalms.  Cf.  also  A.  J.  de  Ruever- 
Groneman,  Diatr.  in  J.  Wicliffi  vitam  et  scripta,  Traj.  1837,  p.  252  ff.  ;  idem, 
in  the  Godgel.  Bydragen,  1863. 

Tradition  of  an  Italian  Bible  by  Jac.  de  Voragine,  Bishop  of  Genoa 
(f  1298),  Sixtus  Senensis,  Bihl.  sancta,  IV.  Others  in  MS.  according  to 
Le  Long,  I.  353  ;  especially  Lami,  De  erud.  app.  (1738),  p.  308  ff.,  who 
points  out  forty  MSS.  in  Florentine  libraries  alone  which  contain  portions 
simply  of  the  N.  T.  in  Italian,  and  are  said  to  reach  back  iuto  the  fourteenth 
century. 

Bohemia  :  a  Gospel  of  John  of  the  tenth  century  (?).  Schaffarik  and 
Palacky,  Bohm.  Denhnaler,  1840  ;  Psalter  of  1396  ;  Gospels  in  the  tiiue  of 
Huss.  The  whole  Bible  from  1410  on,  in  several  partially  defective  copies 
at  Dresden,  Leutmeritz,  Prague,  OlmUtz,  and  other  places,  and  in  various 
recensions.  See  J.  Dobrowsky,  Slovanka,  II.  ;  the  same  author,  on  the  first 
text  of  the  Bohemian  version  of  the  Bible,  in  the  Neue  Abhh.  der  h.  Ges., 
III.,  and  other  wi-itings  ;  fuller  discussion  in  Grasse,  I.  c.  ;  Durich  (§  477). 

Tradition  of  a  Magyar  Bible,  1456,  by  Lad.  Bathori ;  see  Wallaszk}',  Resp. 
lit.  hung.,  p.  75. 

Ussher,  I.  c,  p.  195,  speaks  of  portions  of  the  Bible  in  Dutch  ;  see  the  fol- 
lowing section.  The  oldest  belonging  under  this  head  is  doubtless  the  Rhyme- 
Bible  (JRymhyhel)  of  Jac.  v.  Maerlaudt  (fourteenth  century) ;  beside  this  the 
Psalms,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Gospels,  and  N.  T.  Several  MSS.  are 
described  in  the  Catal.  d.  Bibl.  van  de  Maatschappy  d.  nederl.  Letterkunde, 
Leyd.  1829,  p.  1  ff. ;  Le  Long,  Boekzaal  d.  nederd.  Byhels,  p.  155  ff. 

A  Danish  translation  of  some  of  the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.  (Genesis 
to  Ruth),  written  about  1470,  published  by  Ch.  Molbech,  Copenh.  ;  see  Jac. 
Grimm,  in  the  Gott.  gel.  Anz.,  1831,  96. 

468.  Meanwhile  the  second  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  had 
begun,  the  epoch  with  which  in  the  history  of  the  European 
world,  and  hence  of  all  mankind,  the  modern  era  begins. 
Religious  and  ecclesiastical  movements  were  being  born  amid 
a  terrible  desolation  of  moral  and  social  life.  The  discovery 
of  the  art  of  printing  and  an  increasing  preference  for  the 
popular  languages  accompanied  them,  the  former  the  mightiest 
instrument  of  restoration,  the  latter  the  most  significant  symp- 
tom of  maturity.  But  the  nations,  stricken  in  war,  political 
affairs,  and  trade,  were  still  unable  to  make  use  of  their 
opportunity.  The  eyes  of  many  were  turned  toward  the  just 
discovered  New  World  as  to  the  still  unseen  promised  land. 
The  next  period  was  almost  altogether  unfruitful  for  biblical 
work,  though  full  of  restless  expectation,  and  another  gene- 


POLISH  — BOHEMIAN  — MODERN   ERA.  487 

ration  passed  away  before  the  spell  was  dissolved  and  the 
Scriptures  became  a  popular  book. 

That  Ferrer's  translation  (§  467)  was  printed  at  Valencia  in  1478  appears 
to  be  beyond  doubt ;  the  undertaking  is  ascribed  to  a  Dominican  monk,  Jac. 
Borrell,  and  a  German  printer.  But  Conrad  Gesner  (Partitiones  iheoL,  1549, 
fol.  15)  speaks  of  the  destruction  of  the  edition.  Tlie  last  four  leaves  of  a 
copy  are  said  to  have  been  found  in  the  archives  of  Valencia  in  the  year 
1645.  The  Bibliotheque  Mazarine  at  Paris  possesses  a  Psalter  (reprinted 
from  this  ?),  s.  a.  et  L,  4°  (Gothic).  Cf.  Ussher,  I.  c,  p.  175  ;  Grasse,  Lit. 
Gesch.,  V.  484  ;  Guardia,  I.  c.  (§  467)  ;  Jos.  Rodriguez  de  Castro,  Biblioteca 
Espanola,  1781  ;  J.  L.  Villanueva,  De  la  leccion  de  la  sayrada  escr.  en  I. 
vulgares  ;  and  Valera's  preface  to  his  version  (§  476). 

Italian  translation  by  Nic.  Malherbi  (Malermi),  a  Venetian  Benedictine, 
Ven.  1471;  see  Fabricius,  Historia  Biblioth.,  I.  23.  Ebert  mentions  a  second 
wholly  different  Bible  of  the  same  year  and  place.  The  first  is  a  Historical 
Bible. 

Bohemian  Bible,  Prague,  1488  ;  Venice,  1506,  and  freq. 

A  Dutch  Bible,  at  Delft,  1477,  and  Gouda,  1479.  According  to  Ebert  the 
former  contained  only  the  O.  T.,  without  the  Psalms.  The  Psalms,  Delft, 
1480,  and  freq.  ;  see  Catalogus  d.  Bibl.  v.  d.  Maatschappy  d.  nederl.  Letter- 
kunde  te  Leide,  1829,  p.  73  ff. 

AU  these  editions  are  among  the  greatest  rarities,  even  in  rich  libraries  ; 
there  are  probably  few  copies  in  private  hands,  if  any  at  all.  The  same  is 
true  also  of  the  French  block  Bibles,  of  which  three  principal  classes  are  to 
be  distinguished  (see  my  essay  cited  in  §  466)  :  — 

I.  The  N.  T.  complete  (Paul  immediately  after  the  Gospels),  without  date 
(1478  ?),  printed  at  Lyons,  by  Barth.  Buyer,  fol.  Two  editions  of  it  exist, 
differing  also  in  text.  One  is  printed  in  columns,  the  other  in  continuous 
lines.  In  the  subscription  are  mentioned,  as  editors,  not  as  translators,  two 
Augustinian  monks,  Julien  Macho  and  Peter  Farget.  There  is  a  copy  of  the 
first  edition  in  the  Leipzig  City  Council  Library  ;  several  at  Paris.  The 
translation  is  the  same  as  that  found  in  the  additions  to  Guiars,  by  no  means 
the  work  of  Guiars  himself,  as  we  still  possess  it  in  the  Gospels  at  Jena.  It 
is  found  unaltered  in  the  following  work. 

II.  The  complete  Bible,  i.  e.,  the  work  of  Guiars  (§  466),  completed  by  an 
unknown  hand,  was  first  printed  for  Charles  VIII.  about  1487,  Paris,  by 
Verard,  2  vols.,  fol.,  and  afterward  repeated  perhaps  twelve  tiines,  partly  at 
Paris,  partly  at  Lyons,  until  1545.  The  editio  princeps  was  edited  by  the 
king's  confessor,  J.  de  Rely.  Several  of  these  editions  are  not  preserved 
even  in  Paris,  in  particular  the  three  which  I  myself  possess,  two  Lyons 
editions,  1518  and  1521,  fol.,  and  a  third  from  which  title-page  and  sub- 
scription are  gone.  I  have  given  the  accurate  nomenclature,  so  far  as  it  was 
possible,  I.  c,  p.  148  ff.  The  text  consists,  as  has  been  said,  of  a  partly  nar- 
rative, everywhere  annotated  adaptation  of  the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T., 
of  an  annotated  Apocalypse,  and  of  a  plain  translation  of  the  Vulgate  in  all 
the  rest.     The  work  was  called  La  grant  Bible  in  distinction  from  IV. 

III.  Single  portions  :  the  books  of  Solomon,  together  with  Wisdom  and 
Sirach,  1482  ;  Psalter,  about  the  same  time  ;  Apocalypse,  1502  ;  Pauline 
Epistles,  aimotated,  1507. 

IV.  La  Bible  pour  les  simples  gens  was  the  title  of  a  shorter  adaptation  of 
the  histories  of  the  O.  T.,  of  which  I  have  described  five  undated  editions 
from  Parisian  copies,  I.  c,  p.  153. 

469.  Germany  alone,  the  mother  of  the  new  art,  immediately 
and  industriously  put  it  to  the  service  of  the  good  cause.  And 
although  the  seventeen  editions  of  her  old  translation  of  the 


488  HISTORY  OF  the  versions. 

Bible  were  due  solely  to  the  enterprising  commercial  spirit  of 
the  printers,  yet  their  rapid  succession,  if  not  the  present 
scarcity  of  copies,  bears  witness  plainly  to  the  desire  of  the 
people.  True,  we  no  longer  speak  of  their  inner  value,  and 
it  often  seems  scarcely  conceivable  to  tlie  reader  how  the  harsh 
literal  imitation  of  a  Latin  work  itself  so  full  of  errors  could 
have  been  intelligible  at  all  even  to  contemporaries.  They 
have  now  fallen  to  the  rank  of  typograpliical  curiosities,  and 
the  names  of  the  printing  establishments  at  Mayenee,  Strass- 
burg,  Augsburg,  and  Nuremberg  have  become  more  famous 
than  those  of  the  pious  translators ;  but  even  so  they  remain  a 
noble  monument  of  how  the  German  nation  was  quietly  pre- 
paring for  the  inspiration  of  power. 

Before  1477  five  undated  editions,  in  a  High  German  dialect  verging  to 
some  extent  toward  the  Swiss  ;  the  oldest  and  rarest  of  them,  though  in 
disputed  order,  were  printed  at  Mayenee  and  Strasshurg  (according  to  the 
usual  opinion),  the  fifth  at  Augsburg  (G.  Zainer),  with  a  statement  of  the 
place.  Yet  bibliographers  themselves  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  places  of 
printing  ;  according  to  Ebert  Augsburg  and  Nuremberg  are  to  be  supposed 
instead  of  Mayenee,  and  Strassburg  should  have  the  first  place  (1466,  Egge- 
steyn  and  Mentelin). 

From  1477  to  Luther  seven  at  Augsburg  (1477  his,  1480,  1487,  1490, 
1507,  1518),  by  various  printers,  one  at  Nuremberg,  1483,  Anton.  Koburger, 
typographically  the  finest  (Osc.  Hase,  Die  Koburger  Bihel.  zu  Nilrnh.,  L. 
1869),  and  one  at  Strassburg,  1485  ;  all  in  folio  of  larger  or  smaller  size, 
usually  in  two  volumes.  From  the  fifth  edition  on  copies  are  tolerably  fre- 
quent but  almost  always  defective  or  damaged. 

Beside  these  complete  Bibles  there  also  belong  here  an  edition  of  the 
pericopes  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  and  a  series  of  editions  of  the  Psalms, 
the  oldest  of  which,  with  German  notes,  was  printed  in  1477,  f ol. ;  afterward 
with  the  Vulgate,  especially  in  Strassburg,  in  small  size.  Three  Low 
German  Bibles,  Cologne,  1480  ;  Liibeck,  1494  ;  Halberstadt,  1522,  all  rare, 
particidarly  the  first.  J.  Niesert,  Nachricht  iiber  die  erste  zu  Coelln  gedruckte 
niederd.  Bihel,  1825. 

On  the  relationship  of  all  these  editions  to  one  another,  and  to  the  works 
mentioned  in  §  464,  the  last  word  has  not  yet  been  said.  Unfortunately,  it 
has  thus  far  been  bibliographers  and  collectors  of  curiosities  who  have  taken 
hold  of  the  matter  rather  than  textual  critics. 

See  Nast,  Nachr.  v.  d.  seeks  ersten  deutschen  Bibelausgg.,  1767  ;  cf.  §  464. 
G.  W.  Panzer,  Geschichte  der  Niirnherger  Ausgg.  der  Bihel,  N.  1778  ;  idem, 
Augshurger  Ausgg.,  N.  1780,  and  other  bibliographical  writmgs  of  the  same 
author  ;  J.  M.  Goze,  Versuch  einer  Historic  der  gedruckten  niedersdchsischen 
Bibeln,  1775  ;  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Beschreihung  einiger  altdeutschen  Biheluherss. 
vor  Luther's  Zeit  {Syntagma  comment.,  I.)  ;  Meyer,  Geschichte  der  Schrifterkl., 
I.  250  ff.  Earlier  notices  in  J.  F.  Mayer,  Geschichte  der  luther.  Ueherss.,  p.  181 ; 
Baumgarten,  Handb.,  III.  283  ;  VII.  387  ;  Nachr.,  I.  97  ;  VI.  95  ;  VII.  1. 
—  G.  Steigenberger,  Ueher  die  zwei  alteste  gedr.  d.  Bibeln  zu  Milnchen,  1787. 
Cf.  also  Zapf,  Bibliogr.  Nachr.,  Augsb.  1800  ;  J.  B.  Riederer,  Nachrichten  zur 
Kirchen-,  Gelehrten-,  und  Biicher-Geschichte,  Altd,  1764  f.,  I.  1  ;  C.  C.  Am 
Ende,  Von  deutschen  Psaltern,  in  Riederer's  Ahhh.,  1768,  2  and  4. 

Here  may  be  mentioned  also  the  eloquent  wish  of  Erasmus  (Prcef.  in 
Paraph.  Evv.)  for  the  circulation  of  the  Bible  among  the  people.  Un- 
founded tradition  of  a  German  version  by  him  :  J.  H.  Stuss,  De  Erasmi  vers. 
N.  T.  germanica,  Gotha,  1742  ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1742,  p.  711  ;  1744,  p.  942. 


GERMAN  —  LUTHER.  489 

470.  But  these  old  Bibles  were  at  once  forgotten  when  Mar- 
tin Luther  published  at  Wittenberg,  in  September,  1522,  his 
New  Testament,  the  fruit  of  his  leisure  at  Wartburg.  The 
time  was  ripe  for  a  work  to  which  several  were  addressing 
themselves  at  the  same  time,  but  which  only  one  brought  to  a 
happy  issue.  All  eyes  were  fixed  upon  its  progress,  and  the 
separate  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  rapidly  followed,  while 
the  press  was  scarcely  able  by  repeated  and  often  improved 
editions  to  satisfy  the  demand.  Finally,  after  the  first  com- 
plete Bible  had  appeared,  in  1534,  and  seven  years  later  had 
undergone,  with  the  learned  cooperation  of  several  friends,  a 
thorough  revision,  the  last  form  given  it  by  its  author  came  to 
be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  creed,  and  as  the  norm  according 
to  which  controversy  as  to  suspected  alterations  must  be  de- 
cided. 

The  more  accurate  bibliographers  enumerate  various  single  passages  (e.  g., 
the  penitential  Psalms)  which  Luther  had  published  in  German  before, 
mostly  in  sermons  and  other  tractates  of  ulterior  contents.  Worthy  of  note 
are  the  exceedingly  rare  German  translations  of  some  books  which  are  peers 
of  Luther  in  age,  but  in  age  alone  :  Euangelium  Johannis  des  gotUchen  Cantz- 
lers,  .  .  .  d.  Nic.  Krumpach  (Pastor  of  Querfurt),  L.  1522,  4°.  (Unsch. 
Nadir.,  1732,  p.  G88) ;  in  the  same  year,  by  the  same  author,  Czwu  Epp.  des 
Fursten  der  zwelff  botten  S.  peters,  .  .  .  (and  likewise  the  three  Pastoral 
Epistles).  —  Euangelia  der  vier  Euangelisten  auffdas  ddrUchest  verdeutschi, 
Augsb.  1522,  4  Pts.,  16°,  in  which  the  John  is  by  Krumpach,  the  rest  (?)  by 
J.  Lang,  Angustinian  Prior  at  Erfurt.  —  Der  psalter  des  Kinigs  und  propheten 
Dauids,  by  Ottmar  Nachtgal,  Augsb.  1524,  4°  (annotated) ;  cf .  Unsch.  Nackr., 
1721,  p.  544.  —  Psalter  des  kihiiglichen  prophetten  D.  geteutscht,  by  Casp.  Am- 
man, Augsb.  1523,  12°;  Psalms  from  the  Latin  of  Job.  Campensis,  Augsb. 
1536  ;  see  Panzer,  Augsb.  Biheln,  p.  57;  Baumgarten,  Nadir.,  VI.  384  ;  Bib- 
lioth.  Sdieibeliana,  p.  9  ;  Riederer,  Nachr.,  I.  2,  3,  4  ;  II.  6  ;  the  same  author 
also  points  out  an  edition  of  the  Gospels,  L.  1522,  and  two  versions  of  Mark 
and  Luke. 

Literary  history  of  Luther's  version  (altogether  complete  only  do\^^l  to 
1581):  J.  F.  Mayer,  Hist.  vers.  germ.  .  .  ,  Lutheri,  Hamb.  s.  a.,  4°  ;  J.  M. 
Kraflft,  Emendanda  (to  the  foregoing),  Slesv.  1705  ;  idem,  Nadiridit  von  der 
ersten  Bibelausg.  Luther's,  Alt.  1735  ;  G.  G.  Zeltner,  Kurzgef.  Historie  der 
gedr.  Bibelversion  L.,  Nlirnb.  1727;  J.  C.  Bertram,  Entdedcungen  in  d.  deut- 
schen  Bibelgesch.  (Abhh.,  I.,  II.);  C.  G.  Giese,  Nadiriditen  v.  d.  Bibeliibers. 
Luther's,  edited  by  J.  B.  Riederer,  Alt.  1771;  J.  G.  Palm,  Hist,  der  Bibelii- 
bers. Lutheri  bis  1534.,  edited  by  J.  M.  Goze,  Halle,  1772.  Also  Goze's  Neue 
Entdeckungen,  and  Vergkichung  der  Originalausgg.,  etc.,  L.  1777;  G.  W.  Pan- 
zer, Vollst.  Gesch.  der  deutschen  Bibeliibers.  Luihers  bis  1581,  2d  ed.  NUrnb. 
1791  ;  H.  E.  Bindseil,  Verzeichniss  der  Originalausgg.,  etc.,  Halle,  1841,  4°. 
For  the  oldest  editions,  Riederer's  Nachr.,  III.  10.  Popidar  works  :  S.  G. 
C.  Kiister,  B.  1823  ;  C.  A.  Weideman,  L.  1834  ;  C.  W.  KrafPt,  Strassb.  1835; 
H.  Schott,  L.  1835.     [Art.  German  Versions,  in  Kitto's  Cyclop.'] 

Summary  of  the  original  editions  (Wittenberg,  Melchior  Lotther  and  his 
sons)  according  to  Panzer.  I.  Before  the  appearance  of  the  whole  Bible  : 
N.  T.,  seventeen  editions  in  at  least  three  recensions  ;  the  Pentateuch  (1523), 
seven  editions  ;  the  other  historical  books  (1524),  four  editions  ;  the  poet- 
ical books  (1524),  three  editions  ;  the  Psalms  separately,  six  editions  ;  finally 


490  HISTORY   OF   THE   VERSIONS. 

single  prophets  and  apocryphal  books.  Almost  without  exception  in  folio. 
J.  G.  Laelimann,  De  Lutheri  prima  versione  V.  T.  per  partes,  Hv.  1758.  II. 
Complete  edition  of  the  Bible,  1534,  2  vols.  foL,  and  four  times  afterward  ; 
also  the  N.  T.  separately  four  times  and  the  Psalms  twice.  III.  lievised 
edition,  with  the  cooperation  of  Melanchthon,  Bugenhagen,  .Jonas,  Creut- 
ziger,  and  Aurogallus,  1541,  2  vols,  fol.,  and  down  to  the  time  of  Luther's 
death  four  times  more.  The  last,  of  1545,  was  regarded  afterward,  and  un- 
til the  time  of  the  pietistic  controversies,  as  the  unchangeable  standard  edi- 
tion. But  before  that  time,  IV.  1546-1580,  the  whole  Bible  thirty-six  times, 
the  N.  T.  seven,  and  the  Psalms  three,  said  to  be  changed  (especially  m  the 
Epistles)  according  to  Luther's  posthumous  papers,  but  opposed  by  the 
stricter  orthodoxy  until  the  Elector  Augustus  commanded  a  return  to  the 
text  of  1545  (Unsch.  Nachr.,  1723,  p.  182  ;  J.  C.  Bertram,  in  the  Appendix 
to  the  German  edition  of  R.  Simon,  III.  259).  For  the  reprints,  see  §  472. 
—  For  many  other  notes  belonging  under  this  head  see  Unsch.  Nachr.,  espe- 
cially 1727,  p.  183  ;  1732,  p.  519.  C.  Monckeberg,  Beitr.  zur  Herstellung  des 
Textes  der  luther.  BibelUbers.,  Hamb.  1855. 

The  division  of  verses  was  not  introduced  until  after  Luther's  death. 

A  critical  diplomatic  reprint  of  the  last  edition  of  Luther,  1545,  with  all 
the  variants  occurring  in  former  editions  and  in  Luther's  other  writings,  was 
published  by  H.  E.  Bindseil  and  H.  A.  Niemeyer,  1845  ff.,  7  vols.  8°;  see 
Allg.  Literaturzeitung,  1848,  II.  537. 

471.  Luther's  Bible  not  only  became  the  firmest  support  of 
the  Reformation  and  the  noblest  monument  of  his  own  fame, 
but  it  is  a  national  German  work.  He  had  few  aids  in  attain- 
ing his  ideal  beside  his  own  genius  and  faith.  Linguistic  sci- 
ence was  yet  in  its  infancy ;  the  extant  expositors  of  Scripture 
were  unsatisfactory ;  tbe  old  versions  were  almost  more  mis- 
leading ;  and  new  principles  must  first  be  gained  and  tested. 
But  the  master,  full  of  self-confidence,  dared  to  place  himself 
above  his  predecessors.  Although  many  faults  in  details  have 
since  been  pointed  out  in  it,  yet  for  its  time  his  Bible  was  a 
miracle  of  science.  Its  language,  happily  rising  out  of  Old 
German  harshness,  the  best  that  Luther  wrote,  and  surpassed 
b}^  none  of  his  contemporaries,  sounded  like  a  prophecy  of  a 
golden  age  of  literature,  and  in  manly  vigor  and  anointing  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  it  has  ever  remained  a  model  unapproached. 

The  exegetical  helps  at  the  command  of  Luther  were  the  LXX.,  the  Vul- 
gate, some  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  especially  Jerome  (against  whom,  unfortu- 
nately, he  was  prejudiced),  the  first  very  imperfect  Hebrew  text-books  ;  for 
the  N.  T.  no  preparatory  philological  work  except  Erasmus.  For  it  was 
from  his  text  (1519),  and  not  from  Gerbel's  edition  (1521),  as  was  formerly 
thought,  that  he  made  his  translation.  Controversial  writings  upon  this 
point  by  P.  A.  Boysen,  1723  ;  T.  Eckhard,  1723  ;  J.  G.  Palm,  1735  ;  J.  F. 
Eckhard,  1762  ;  cf.  Lilienthal's  Exeg.  Bibl.,  p.  400 ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1722, 
p.  1090  ;  1724,  p.  893. 

See  J.  A.  Gotz,  Ueherhlieh  iiher  Luther^s  Vorschule,  Meisterschaft,  und  Reife, 
Niirnb.  1824  ;  G.  W.  Hopf,  Wiirdigung  der  luth.  Bibelverdeutschung  mit  Riick- 
sicht  auf  dltere  und  neuere  Ueberss.,  Niirnb.  1847;  Panzer,  Gesch.  der  kathol. 
Uebers.,  p.  29.  Alleged  discovery  of  a  German  translation  of  the  N.  T.  by 
Erasmus,  which  Luther  may  have  copied  ;  see  §  469. 

The  character  of  Luther's  version  is  not  punctiliously  literal,  but  free, 


LUTHER.  491 

having  regard  to  the  genius  of  the  German  language  ;  it  is  noteworthy  that 
it  was  precisely  this,  its  best  quality,  which,  though  it  did  not  in  the  least 
limit  its  continued  usefulness,  was  the  first  to  be  criticised  by  the  narrow- 
ness of  theologians  (§  483).  Cf.  on  this  matter,  in  particular,  Luther's  let- 
ter to  Wenzel  Link,  Vom  Dolmetschen  und  Fiirbitte  der  Heiligen,  1530,  re- 
printed in  Gdtz,  p.  128  ff.  (  Werke,  Erlangen  ed.,  LXV.  102) ;  W.  A.  TeUer, 
Darstellung  und  Beurtheilung  der  deutschen  Sprache  in  Luther's  Bibelubers.,  B. 
1794 ;  D.  V.  fetade,  Erkl.  der  deutschen  Worter,  etc.,  Brem.  1724  ;  J.  G.  Wei- 
ler's  Gedanken,  p.  137  ff.  ;  Ph.  Marheineke,  Ueber  den  relig.  Werth  der  Bibel- 
ubers. Luther's,  B.  1815  ;  J.  F.  Wetzel,  Die  Sprache  Luther's  in  seiner  Bibel- 
ubers., Stuttg.  1859  ;  E.  Opitz,  Die  Sprache  Luther's,  H.  1869. 

To  Luther's  version  belong  also  his  prefaces  to  the  separate  books,  which 
for  a  long  time  were  inserted  in  the  editions  ;  afterward  omitted,  first  in  the 
manual  editions,  in  part,  doubtless,  because  of  their  critical  faults.  (§  334.) 
There  are  no  chapter  headings  in  the  old  and  genuine  Lutheran  Bibles.  It 
may  be  mentioned,  as  a  point  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  in  not  a 
smgle  Lutheran  edition  of  the  Bible  until  long  after  the  death  of  the  Re- 
former is  the  sentence  1  Jn.  v.  7  to  be  found.  See  Palm,  Codd.  Lutheri, 
p.  123  if.  ;  Utisch.  Nachr.,  1711,  p.  156 ;  1733,  p.  179. 

472.  As  upon  a  long  awaited  watchword,  those  everywhere 
who  were  prepared  for  the  great  innovations  in  the  Church 
seized  upon  Luther's  version.  True,  it  did  not  lead  the  way 
to  the  Reformation,  but  the  Reformation  could  not  have  gone 
on  without  it.  It  was  printed  everywhere  in  Germany.  The 
Swiss  did  not  wait  until  it  was  completed,  but  hastily  supplied 
what  was  still  lacking  and  adapted  the  rest  to  their  dialect. 
In  other  places  also,  in  consequence  of  being  obliged  to  wait 
so  long  for  the  completion  of  the  Wittenberg  edition,  plans 
were  made  for  obtaining  the  Scriptures  in  full.  A  still  more 
complete  paraphrase  awaited  it  in  the  northern  regions  of  Ger- 
many, into  the  lowland  languages.  It  had  already  penetrated, 
along  with  the  new  doctrine,  to  the  remaining  branches  of  the 
Germanic  stock,  to  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Holland.  Later, 
it  reached  distant  Iceland,  all  the  countries  on  the  Baltic  Sea, 
even  Lapland,  wherever  the  need  that  was  felt  of  reading  the 
Bible  was  greater  than  the  ability  to  translate  it  anew  from  the 
original  text. 

According  to  Panzer,  Luther's  Bible  was  reprinted  in  Germany,  down  to 
1580,  thirty-eight  times,  beside  the  N.  T.  seventy-two  times,  not  counting 
separate  portions  of  the  O.  T.  ;  mostly  at  Augsburg,  Basle,  Frankfort  on  the 
Main,  Nuremberg,  and  Strassburg,  also  at  Colmar  and  Hagenau  ;  in  many 
styles,  also  in  small  size  ;  among  them  also  an  edition  of  the  N.  T.  on  parch- 
ment, Augsb.  1535,  2  vols.  12°;  an  account  of  it  by  J.  H.  v.  Seelen,  Liih. 
1747;  Panzer,  p.  336.  An  approximate  summary  of  later  editions  is  given 
by  Walch,  Bibl.  TheoL,  IV.  86  ff.  Particular  points  are  discussed  by  J.  M. 
Krafft,  Prodromus  hist.  vers.  germ,  bibl.,  Hamb.  1714 ;  Forts.,  1716. 

The  first  four  Zurich  editions  (1524, 1527,  and  1530  twice)  contain,  beside 
the  older  portions  of  Luther,  a  translation  of  the  Prophets  and  Apocrypha 
peculiar  to  them,  by  Conr.  Pellicanus,  Leo  Juda,  Theod.  Bibliander,  and 
others  ;  from  1531  on  also  a  new  translation  of  the  poetical  books  ;  see  Pan- 
zer, p.  260  ;  Breitinger,  Von  den  Zuricher  Ausgg.  der  Bibel,  in  Simmler's 


492  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

SammL,  II.  381  ;  J.  C.  Niischeler,  in  Lork's  Bibelgeschlchte,  I.  212.  No 
classical  German  wrifcten  language  at  that  time  existed,  and  the  Basle  re- 
prints of  Luther  are  provided  with  small  glossaries  for  the  Saxon  dialect. 

Other  so-called  combination  Bibles  are  that  of  Worms,  1529  (G.  G.  Zelt- 
ner,  Nachr.  v.  d.  Wormser  Bibel,  Altd.  1734),  and  a  series  of  editions,  Strass- 
burg  and  Durlach,  by  W.  Kopffel,  1530  if.,  the  text  of  which  was  made  up 
partly  from  the  Ziirich  edition,  partly  also  from  the  translation  of  the 
Prophets  by  the  Anabaptists  L.  Hetzer  and  J.  Uenk,  Worms,  1527,  Augsb. 
1528  and  freq.  ;  on  which  see  Baumgarteu,  Handb.,  VIII.  285,  308  ;  Unsch. 
Nachr.,  1711,  p.  763. 

I  have  in  my  possession  a  complete  German  Bible,  bound  at  Strassbui'g  in 
1542,  consisting  of  the  Wittenberg  editio  princeps  of  Luther's  O.  T.,  Pts.  1-3; 
Hetzer's  Prophets  (Hagenau,  1528),  the  Apocryjjha  of  Zurich  (Strassb. 
1530),  and  a  Strassburg  reprint  of  the  N.  T.  of  1525,  both  by  Knobloch, 
fol. 

Here  also  may  be  placed  the  Lutheran  N.  T.  revised  by  Jac.  Beringer, 
chancellor  at  Speyer  (Strassb.  1526,  fol.),  in  which  the  Gospels  are  worked 
into  a  harmony  ;  see  Riederer,  Nachr.,  IV.  14. 

Preceding  Luther  in  time  :  Ruth,  by  Boschenstayn,  1525  ;  Malachi,  by 
Hetzer,  1526  ;  Hosea,  by  Capito,  1527,  and  similar  small  attempts.  See 
Riederer's  Nachr.,  II.  80  ff. 

Low  German  (indigenous)  Lutheran  Bibles  by  J.  Hoddersen,  since  1533, 
at  Liibeck,  Hamburg,  Wittenberg,  Magdeburg,  frequently ;  see  Goze,  above, 
§  469  ;  Baumgarteu,  Nachr.,  III.  1  ;  VI.  98  ;  VII.  390. 

Danish  N.  T.  1524,  Bible  1550.     Found  also  in  Hutter's  Polyglot. 

Swedish  N.  T.  1526,  Bible  1541,  by  Or.  and  Lor.  Petri,  and  Lor.  Ander- 
son. 

Icelandic  N.  T.  1540,  Bible  1554,  by  Gudbrand  Thorlacius,  Bishop  of 
Holum.  Cf.  L.  Harboe,  in  Lork's  Bibelgesch.,  I.  399  ;  Lork,  ibidem,  11. 
203  ff. 

Dutch  N.  T.  1526,  Antw.  by  Jac.  v.  Liesvelt,  from  whom  these  oldest 
Dutch  Bibles  are  called  Liesvelts.  See  Riederer's  Nachr.,  II.  137.  —  For 
the  Dutch  Lutherans  A.  Vischer,  in  1648,  translated  Luther's  Bible  anew  ; 
it  is  still  used  in  this  form. 

It  need  not  be  remarked  that  all  these  versions  were  reprinted  until  dis- 
placed by  more  modern  and  better  ones  (§  485). 

The  oldest  of  these  hastily  made  translations,  whose  authors  are  unknown 
to  us,  were  doubtless  in  the  first  instance  speculations  of  booksellers  who 
had  correctly  judged  the  temper  of  the  time.  For  further  literary  refer- 
ences, see  §  485. 

473.  At  about  the  same  time,  or  even  earlier  than  Germany, 
France  also  obtained  a  Bible,  the  first  strictly  literally  trans- 
lated, at  first  likewise  in  parts,  finally  complete.  But  it  did 
not  come  from  the  pen  of  a  Luther.  Indeed,  we  scarcely  know 
whether  we  ought  to  call  Jaques  Le  Fevre's  work  the  first- 
fruits  of  the  Protestant  movement.  The  French  Reformed 
have  at  least  never  recognized  it.  Nameless,  homeless,  hiding 
from  priestly  zeal,  winning  no  fame  for  its  author,  and  scarcely 
promoting  the  cause,  it  lived  an  uncertain  life,  and  soon  fled  to 
a  foreign  land,  under  the  protection  of  the  German  emperor. 

On  Jac.  Faber  Stapulensis,  i.  e.,  of  Etaples  near  Boulogne,  a  man  well- 
versed  and  active  in  philosoj^hy  and  literature,  who  was  very  accessible  to 
the  ideas  of  the  Reformation  (f  1537)  and  also  has  merit  as  an  exegete 


FRENCH  —  LEFEVRE  —  OLIVETAN.  493 

(§§  454,  543),  see  C.  H.  Graf,  Essai  sur  la  vie  et  les  e'crits  de  J.  L.  d'E., 
Strassb.  1842  ;  enlarged  in  Niedner's  Hist.  Zeitschr.,  1852,  I.,  II.  Cf.  also 
J.  W.  Baum,  Orlgines  evangelii  in  Gallia  restaurati,  Arg.  1838  ;  Baumgarten, 
Nachr.,  VI.  377;  Or.  Douen,  Societe  hihlique  de  Paris,  p.  1  ff. ;  H.  de  Saba- 
tier-Plantier,  /.  Le  Fevre  d'Etaples  d'apres  de  nouveaux  documents,  P.  1870. 

There  appeared  from  him,  anonymously,  the  Gospels,  Paris,  Sim.  de  Co- 
lines,  1523  and  1524,  in  three  editions  ;  the  second  part  of  the  N.  T.,  1523, 
1525,  and  Antw.  1526  ;  complete  N.  T.,  Paris,  1525  ;  the  Psalms,  P.  1525. 
On  account  of  the  persecutions  which  he  but  narrowly  escaped  (the  legisla- 
ture prohibited  the  translation  in  1525)  he  brought  out  the  continuation  of 
his  work  at  Antwerp,  Martin  Lempereur,  O.  T.,  1528,4  Pts.  8°;  whole  Bible, 
1530,  etc.  (§  480),  fol.  There  the  clergy  showed  themselves  less  hostile. 
Le  Fevre's  authorship  in  the  O.  T.  depends  more  upon  presumption  than 
upon  proof.  His  name  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  complete  work.  The 
Paris  editions  are  among  the  greatest  rarities.  I  have  a  N.  T.,  Basle,  1525. 
May  this  have  been  the  real  place  of  jjrinting  ?  No  literary-critical  investi- 
gation of  this  version  Las  yet  been  made. 

474.  It  was  not  until  1535,  though  still  early,  that  the 
friends  of  the  Reformation  movement,  who  were  gradually 
organizing  themselves  into  churches,  obtained  a  French  Prot- 
estant Bible ;  and  Switzerland  had  to  be  its  birthplace.  The 
author  was  a  cousin  of  Calvin,  Peter  Robert,  surnamed  Olive- 
tan,  endowed  with  good  will  and  a  considerable  knowledge  of 
Hebrew,  but  not  enough  for  the  exegetical  skill  of  his  distin- 
guished relative,  so  that  his  work  could  not  dispense  with 
speedy  and  thorough  revision.  This  was  given  it,  in  part  re- 
peatedly, first  by  the  practiced  hand  of  the  Geneva  Reformer 
himself,  afterward  by  his  successors.  Seldom  printed  in  France, 
oftener  in  foreign  lands,  this  Bible,  not  so  much  like  a  child 
neglected  at  the  birth  as  like  one  more  and  more  corrupted  in 
the  bringing  up,  has  bequeathed  to  succeeding  generations  the 
sense  of  its  defects  and  the  endless  task  of  correcting  them  ;  it 
has  become  the  only  Church  edition,  yet  the  Church  has  never 
been  able  to  bring  its  text  into  a  fixed  state ;  and  in  its  num- 
berless transformations  and  improvements  it  has  always  lagged 
behind  the  language  and  behind  science. 

The  Bible  of  Pierre  Robert  (of  Noyon  in  Picardy  ;  Olivetanus  is,  I  sus- 
pect, an  assumed  literary  name)  was  printed  in  1535,  fol.,  in  the  village  of 
Serrieres,  near  Neuchatel,  in  Switzerland,  by  his  countryman  Pierre  de 
Wingle,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  Waldenses,  as  it  is  stated,  although  these 
people  at  that  time  spoke  and  wrote  Romance.  This  original  edition  of  the 
French  Protestant  Bible  now  only  exists  in  a  few  copies  in  public  libraries. 
Cf.  Leger,  Hist,  des  Vaudois,  p.  165  ;  Monastier,  Hist,  des  Vaudois,  I.  211  ; 
Douen,  I.  c,  p.  32  ff .  —  As  to  the  sources  and  value  of  this  work,  which  in 
the  Apocrypha  repeats  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  in  the  N.  T.  is  dependent 
upon  Erasmus,  and  only  in  the  O.  T.  is  prepared  from  the  original  text  with 
really  praiseworthy  diligence  and  independent  scholarship,  although  with 
the  aid  of  S.  Pagninus  (§§  481,  551),  see  my  extended  discussion  in  the 
Strassb.  Revue,  1865  ff.,  3d  series.  III.,  IV.,  V.  It  is  there  shown,  also,  that 
the  reprints  of  separate  portions  which  appeared  in  1538  f.  under  the  pseudo- 
nym Belisem  de  Belimacom  (i.  e.,  Nameless  of  Nowhere)  are  also  by  Olive- 
tan. 


494  HISTORY  OF  the  versions. 

Likewise  very  rare,  or  rather  altogether  undiscoverable  (in  my  opinion 
even  questionable)  is  the  series  of  reprints  :  Geneva,  1540  ;  Lyons,  1541. 
—  Fii-st  hasty  revision  by  Calvin  :  Geneva,  1545,  and  frequently  in  both 
cities.  —  More  thorough  revision,  Geneva,  1551,  with  new  translation  of  the 
Psalms  by  L.  Bade,  and  new  Apocrypha  by  Beza.  From  that  time  on  the 
editions  in  both  cities  (nowhere  else)  very  frequent. 

For  the  continuation  of  the  history  of  this  Bible  see  §  486. 

A  controversy  arose  over  the  Geneva  version  between  Catholics  and  Prot- 
estants in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  literature  is  to  be 
found  together  in  Le  Long,  II.  1038.  The  best  known  and  niost  extensive 
documents  are  that  of  the  Jesuit  P.  Cotton,  Geneve  plagiaire,  1618,  and  the 
Defense  of  the  Geneva  Professor  B.  Turretin,  1619. 

475.  Changeful,  like  the  history  of  Protestantism  itself  in 
England,  has  also  been  that  of  the  English  Bible.  The  whims 
of  a  despot,  the  close  connection  of  Church  and  State,  the  sud- 
den change  of  religious  policy  with  the  person  of  the  ruler, 
and  the  internal  divisions  of  the  Reformed  party,  prevented 
this  work  from  coming  so  soon  to  vigorous  success.  Many  at- 
tempted it.  The  first  forfeited  his  life  in  consequence  ;  sev- 
eral were  obliged  to  seek  a  home  for  it  in  foreign  lands.  It 
was  not  until  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  when  with  the  restoration 
of  civil  order  the  feeling  of  independence  and  the  sense  of  free- 
dom became  domesticated  in  the  nation,  that  the  national 
Church  received  from  the  hands  of  her  royal  mistress  an  edi- 
tion in  the  language  of  the  people,  prepared  by  her  bishops  in 
common. 

J.  Lewis,  A  Complete  History  of  the  Several  Translations  of  the  Holy  Bible 
and  N.  T.  into  English,  2d  ed.  Lond.  1739  ;  Continued  to  the  present  time, 
1818  ;  Newcome,  Historical  View  of  English  Biblical  Translations,  Dubl. 
1792  ;  A.  C.  Ducarel,  A  List  of  Various  Editions,  etc.,  Lond.  1778  ;  H.  Cot- 
ton, List  of  Editions,  etc.,  Oxf.  (1821)  1852  [by  the  same  author,  Rhemes 
and  Doway,  An  attempt  to  show  what  has  been  done  by  Roman  Catholics  for  the 
diffusion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Oxf.  1855]  ;  Anderson,  The  Anncds  of  the 
English  Bible,  Lond.  1845,  2  vols,  [new  ed.  revised,  1862  ;  Am.  ed.  by 
Dr.  S.  I.  Prime,  abridged,  N.  Y.  1849,  1  vol.]  ;  L.  Wilson,  Accou7it  of  Edi- 
tions, etc.,  1845  ;  Mrs.  H.  C.  Conant,  The  Popular  History  of  the  Translation 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  N.  Y.  1856.  [A  new  edition,  revised  by  Dr.  T.  J. 
Conant,  N.  Y,  1881  (continued  to  the  publication  of  tlie  Revised  N.  T.)]. 
B.  F.  Westcott,  A  General  Vieiv  of  the  History  of  the  English  Bible,  Lond. 
1868  [2d  ed.  1872]  ;  Baumgarten,  Handb.,  VII.  95  ff.  ;  Bellamy,  Preface 
to  his  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.  [Add  John  Stoughtoii,  Our  English 
Bible,  London  (Religious  Tract  Society),  undated,  c.  1878  ;  W.  F.  Moulton, 
History  of  the  English  Bible,  Lond.  1878  ;  John  Eadie,  The  English  Bible, 
Lond.  1876  ;  J.  I.  Mombert,  A  Handbook  of  the  English  Versions  of  the  Bible, 
N.  Y.  and  Lond.  Is83  ;  cf.  the  same  author's  article  on  English  Bible  Ver- 
sions, in  Schaff's  Relig.  Encycl,  I.  p.  731  ff.  ;  Henry  Stevens,  The  Bibles  in 
the  Caxton  Exhibition  MDCCCLXXVIL,  etc.,  Lond.  1878  ;  also  the  intro- 
duction, by  S.   P.  Tregelles,  to  Bagster's  English  Hexapla,  cited  below.] 

First  N.  T.  by  W.  Tyndale,  1526,  of  which  but  one  complete  and  one  de- 
fective copy  exist.  Printed  in  all  twelve  times,  in  two  editions,  always  in 
Holland.     The  author  was  burned  in  1536  in  Belgium. 


ENGLISH  —  ITALIAN  —  SPANISH.  495 

None  of  the  following  pre-Jacobite  (§  485)  translations  and  editions  of 
the  whole  Bible  are  longer  to  be  had  on  the  continent,  and  must  be  very- 
rare  even  in  England  :  — 

(Zurich)  1535,  fol.,  by  Miles  Coverdale  and  others  ;  (Lond.)  1537,  fol. 
by  Tho.  Mathew  («'.  e.,  J.  Roger)  ;  Lond.  1539,  by  Rich.  Taveruer.  In  the 
same  year  one  approved  by  King  Henry  VIII.,  Lond.  1549  and  freq.,  by 
Edm.  Becke. 

Geneva,  1560  (the  N.  T.  earlier),  and  afterward  frequently  in  England, 
by  the  Puritans  (M.  Coverdale,  W.  Whittingham,  Ant.  Gilbie,  and  others)  ; 
usually  called  the  Breeches  Bible,  from  the  expression  used  in  Gen.  iii.  7. 
Repeatedly  revised  in  England  :  15G1,  by  Th.  Cranmei*,  1576,  by  Lor.  Tom- 
son. 

Lond.  1568  and  freq.  ;  the  first  official  Church  version  in  England,  under 
the  direction  of  Archbishop  Pai'ker  of  Canterbury,  by  a  number  of  bishops 
(Bishops'  Bible,  also  Leda  Bible,  from  a  wood-cut  from  profane  history). 

Some  of  these  rare  recensions  have  been  recently  reprinted  ;  particidarly 
happy  is  the  thought  of  the  enterprising  printer,  S.  Bagster,  to  print  together, 
in  parallel  columns,  the  translations  of  Wicliffe,  Tyndale,  Geneva,  Cranmer, 
as  well  as  the  Catholic  and  Royal  still  to  be  mentioned  ( The  English  Hex- 
apla,  Lond.  1821,  4°).  Also,  by  the  same  publisher,  1836,  a  fac-simile  edi- 
tion of  Tyndale's  first  N.  T.,  with  a  biographical  introduction.  Similar  edi- 
tions of  the  oldest  and  almost  lost  printed  versions,  by  F.  Fry  (Tyndale, 
Bristol,  1862  ;  the  others,  from  1539  on,  Lond.  1865,  fol.).  \_New  Teslament. 
Tyndale's  First  Edition,  supposed  to  have  been  Printed  at  Worms  by  Peter 
Schoffer  in  1526  ;  a  Fac-Simile  on  Vellum,  Illumined,  Reprinted  from  the  Copy 
in  the  Baptist  College,  Bristol.  With  an  introduction  by  Francis  Fry,  1862  ; 
by  the  same  edi'tor,  A  Bibliographical  Description  of  the  Editions  of  the  N.  T., 
Tyndale's  Version  in  English,  with  numerous  Readings,  Comparisons  of  Texts, 
and  Historical  Notices,  the  Notes  in  full  of  the  Edition  of  153^,  etc.,  Lond. 
1878,  4°  ;  illustrated  with  seventy-three  plates,  titles,  colophons,  pages,  cap- 
itals (Am.  Bible  Society)  ;  The  First  Printed  English  N.  T.  Translated  by 
Wm.  Tyndale.  Photolithographed  from  the  Unique  Fragment  now  in  the  Gren- 
ville  Collection,  British  Museum,  edited  by  Edw.  Arber,  Lond.  1871.  The 
photolithographed  text  contains  the  prologue,  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  N.  T., 
a  wood-cut,  and  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  from  ch.  i.  to  xxii.  12,  with  marginal 
notes.] 

476.  That  the  Reformation  did  not  penetrate  into  Italy  and 
Spain  is  known  from  history.  The  elements  of  it  which  ex- 
isted there  were  speedily  suppressed,  and  a  strict  watch  was 
kept  against  infection  from  without.  The  degree  of  evil  and 
corruption  had  indeed  become  so  great  that  a  reaction  might 
be  expected,  but  indilferentism  contributed  more,  almost,  than 
either  interest,  wickedness,  or  superstition,  to  strangle  it  at 
the  birth.  Doubtless  zealous  men,  Spanish  fugitives  in  the 
Netherlands,  Italians  in  Switzerland  and  France,  took  pains  to 
make  translations  of  the  Scriptures,  but  these  either  did  not 
find  their  way  into  their  native  country  at  all,  or  no  longer 
found  there  soil  prepared  for  them,  or  expositors,  without 
whom  they  would  not  have  been  intelligible  to  the  masses; 
and  although  some  of  them  were  fitted  for  a  wider  circle  of 
influence,  they  were  permitted  to  comfort  only  the  authors 
themselves  and  their  unfortunate  companions  in  exile. 


496  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

The  Italian  and  Spanish  versions  of  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
like  the  French  of  Le  Fevie,  may  be  reckouetl  among  Catholic  versions,  in- 
asnmeh  as  tlieir  authors  did  not  formally  se^jarate  themselves  from  the 
Eomish  Church,  and  probably  intended  no  act  of  opposition  to  it. 

The  N.  T.  in  Italian,  by  A.  Bruccioli,  Ven.  1530 ;  the  whole  Bible, 
1532,  fol.  ;  afterward  and  frequently,  until  the  end  of  the  century,  at 
Geneva  and  Lyons  ;  also  in  Hutter's  Polyglot.  By  Massimo  Teofilo,  Ex- 
Benedictuie,  Lyons,  1551,  revised  by  Ph.  Kusticius  ('?),  Geneva,  15G0  ;  by 
N.  des  Gallars  and  Beza,  Geneva,  1562,  together  with  the  O.  T.  of  Bruc- 
cioli. 

A  new  and  especially  valuable  translation  of  the  Bible,  by  G.  Diodati, 
Geneva,  1607,  4°,  which  lias  maintained  itself  in  use  beside  all  later  ones  down 
to  the  present  time  ;  a  new  recension  of  it,  by  G.  D.  Miiller,  L.  1743  and  freq. 
Later  editions  have  all  appeared  in  Germany  :  N.  T.  by  Ferromontano,  L. 
1702  ;  i.  e.,  C.  H.  Freiesleben,  2d  ed.  Altd.  1711  ;  Delia  Lega  and  Ravizza, 
Erl.  1711  ;  M.  D'Erberg  (whole  Bible),  Nor.  1711,  fol.  ;  J.  G.  Gluck 
(Glicchio),  L.  1743. 

Cf.  in  general  Le  Long,  I.  353  ;  Rosenmiiller,  IV.  302  ;  R.  Simon,  Hist. 
verss.,  483  ;  Baumgarten,  Handh.,  II.  99  ;  V.  95  ;  Nachr.,  III.  189. 

The  N.  T.  in  Spanish,  by  Fr.  de  Enzinas  (Dryander),  Antw.  1543 
(now  again  circulated  by  the  London  Bible  Society)  ;  by  J.  Perez,  Ven. 
1556.  The  Bible,  by  Cassiodoro  Reina  (Basle),  1569,  4°  ;  also  in  Hutter's 
Polyglot  ;  revised  by  Cypr.  de  Valera,  Amst.  1602,  fol.,  from  which  the 
N.  T.  separately,  Amst.  1625.  There  are  also  Spanish  Bibles  (O.  T.)  by 
Jews,  printed  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  at  Ferrara  and 
Amsterdam. 

Cf .  Fabricius,  Hlstoria  hihl,  1. 13  ;  Le  Long,  I.  361 ;  Rosenmiiller,  IV.  268  ; 
Baumgarten,  Handb.,  II.  483  ;  Riederer's  Nachr.  zur  Kirchengesch.,  II.  145  ; 
IV.  265.  Letters  of  Dryander  and  Reina  referring  to  the  subject  were  pub- 
lished by  Ed.  Bohmer  in  a  Strassburg  Holiday  Programme,  1872. 

The  Portuguese  version  of  J.  Ferreira  D'Almeida  (N.  T.,  Amst.  1712  ; 
afterward  at  Tranquebar  and  Batavia,  now  by  the  London  Bible  Society  ; 
the  O.  T.  printed  in  separate  numbers  since  1719  in  the  East  Indies)  be- 
longs from  its  place  of  printing  in  the  same  category.  See  Baumgarten, 
Nachr.,  II.  293  ;  Handb.,  II.  487. 

477.  The  Slavic  peoples  were  more  fortunate  at  first,  at 
least  those  of  them  living  more  to  the  west.  Bohemia,  already- 
long  prepared  for  the  Reformation,  exchanged  her  old  Hussite 
Bible  for  a  new  one,  based  upon  better  aids.  Even  in  Poland, 
the  land  of  anarchy  and  license,  many  were  affected  by  the 
religious  movement  of  the  century,  and  all  the  opposing  ten- 
dencies of  the  time  existed  together  there  almost  in  peace,  at 
least  more  peacefully  than  anywhere  else  in  Christendom. 
Each  of  them  sought  a  firm  basis  for  itself  in  a  translation  of 
the  Bible  of  its  own.  There  was  a  Lutheran,  a  Reformed, 
and  a  Unitarian,  and  several  of  them  were  repeatedly  revised 
or  replaced  by  new  attempts. 

P.  T.  Carpov,  Notitia  vers,  polonicre  et  bohemicre,  Rost.  1757  5  J.  T.  Eis- 
ner, De  edd.  cod.  s.  bohemicis  (Mus.  Hag.,  IV.);  idem,  Versuck  einer  bohmi- 
schen  Bibelgesch.,  Halle,  1765  ;  Fort  Durich,  De  davo-bohemica  cod.  s.  versione, 
Prague,  1777  ;  Baumgarten,  Handb.,  1.  474  ;  II.  1  ;  Nachr.,  IV.  290. 

A  new  translation  was  prepared  by  the  Bohemian  Brethren  under  the 


SLAVIC  —  CATHOLIC.  497 

guidance  of  Luc.  Helltz,  a  baptized  Jew,  N.  Alberti,  G.  Vetter,  and  others,  and 
printed  in  1579  ff.  6  vols.  4°,  at  Kralitz  iu  Moravia,  in  the  castle  of  Baron  J. 
Zerotin.  It  has  been  used  by  the  Slavs  of  Hungary  down  to  our  own  time. 
Revised  edition  by  D.  Krmann  and  M.  Bel,  Halle,  1722  ;  afterward  at  Brieg, 
1745  ;  Halle,  176G  ;  Pressburg,  1787,  and  freq.  ;  in  modern  recensions  by 
Eisner,  M.  Justitoris,  G.  Palkowitz. 

Another,  Prague,  1769,  3  vols.  fol. 

J.  S.  Diitschke,  De  translationibus  s.  cod.  in  I.  polonicam  (Bibl.  Hag.,  TV. 
299)  ;  Sylv.  Ringeltaube,  Nachrichi  von  poinischen  Bibeln,  Danz.  1744, 

Unitarian  versions,  at  the  expense  of  a  Prince  of  Radzivil,  Brzesc,  1563  ; 
by  Simon  of  Budny,  Czasl.  1572  ;  N.  T.  by  M.  Czechowicz,  1577  ;  by  Val. 
Smalcius,  1620. 

Reformed,  by  P.  Paliurius,  Danzig,  1632.  (Danzig,  1606,  a  N.  T.  ;  pre- 
viously the  Reformed  had  used  the  Brzesc  Bible.)  Repeated,  Amst.  1660, 
and  freq. 

Lutheran  N.  T.  by  J.  Selucianus,  1551.  The  Reformed  (Danzig)  Bible 
was  also  used  by  the  Lutherans,  who  printed  it,  Halle,  1726,  Kon.  1738,  and 
freq.  Polish  Bibles  and  New  Testaments  are  now  many  of  them  printed  at 
Berlin,  Leipzig,  Poseu,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Moscow. 

478.  Thus  the  work  of  reform  everywhere  brought  with  it 
work  upon  the  Scriptures,  designed  for  the  immediate  instruc- 
tion and  edification  of  the  people,  and  thousands  of  copies 
found  their  way  into  the  liovels.  Even  the  Catliolic  party, 
where  it  was  unable  to  control  this  beginning,  was  obliged  to 
follow  the  example  set,  with  however  bad  grace  it  may  often 
have  addressed  itself  to  the  task,  in  order  not  to  leave  to  its 
opponents  alone  the  mighty  weapon  which,  now  that  a  thirst 
for  biblical  knowledge  was  once  aroused,  was  invincible.  The 
circulation  of  these  Catholic  Bibles  depended  upon  a  variety  of 
circumstances,  and  outside  of  Germany  was  inconsidei-able. 
Within  the  period  which  we  now  have  under  consideration,  at 
least,  we  find  in  Italy,  England,  Holland,  and  Poland,  only 
such  works  as  deserve  mention  not  on  account  of  their  influ- 
ence, but  simply  for  the  sake  of  literary-historical  complete- 
ness. 

In  or  at  least  for  England  there  was  printed  at  Rheims,  in  1582,  a  Catholic 
version  of  the  N.  T.  by  W.  Allen  (afterward  Archbishop  of  Mecheln),  which 
is  still  in  use,  known  as  the  Rhemish  Version.  (Riederer,  Nadir.,  I.  389). 
Stereotype  edition,  Dublin,  1829.  The  Bible  printed  at  Douay  in  1609  and 
afterward  in  England  itself  is  in  its  second  part  not  an  altogether  new 
work. 

Italian  versions  of  the  N.  T.,  by  S.  Marmochini,  1538,  by  the  Dominican 
Zacaria,  Ven.  1542,  have  become  exceedingly  rare. 

Dutch  N.  T.,  Delft,  1524  (Riederer,  1. 123) ;  Bible,  Antw.  1534, fol.;  by  N". 
van  Wingh,  1548.  —  Flemish  version,  by  Louvain  theologians,  1598  ;  the  latter 
still  printed  (e.  ^.,  Brussels,  1846). 

Polish,  by  the  Minorite  Hier.  Leopolitanus,  1536  and  freq.  ;  but  especially 
that  by  the  Jesuit  Jac.  Wuyk  (otherwise  Wiec,  Wuyek),  Cracow,  1599,  fol. 
still  reprinted  at  the  present  day. 

Bohemian  Bible,  Prague,  1549,  and  freq. 
32 


498  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

479.  The  Catholic  press  was  most  active  and  least  niggardly 
toward  the  jjeople  in  Germany,  where  at  the  same  time  with 
Luther's  Bible  more  than  one  version  appeared  from  the  other 
side  to  be  set  over  against  it.  Not  only  as  a  controversial 
measure  but  also  to  help  the  sale  of  their  versions,  the  reproach 
of  unfaitlifulness  was  ordinarily  made  against  the  work  of 
Luther,  and  their  own  declared  to  be  the  only  genuine.  This 
charge  appears  hardly  justified,  since  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  the  Catholic  translators  made  use  of  Luther's  work,  and 
that  their  alterations  in  his  text  were  mostly  insignificant, 
based  upon  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  and  in  a  linguistic  point 
of  view  fell  notably  short  of  their  model.  None  of  them 
maintained  themselves  in  use  beyond  the  sixteenth  century. 

G.  W.  Panzer,  Versuch  einer  Tcurzen  Gesch.  der  rom.  kath.  deutschen 
Bibeliiberss.,  Nlirnb.  1781.  For  the  literature  of  the  controversial  writings 
directed  against  Luther's  Bible,  see  Walch,  Bibl.  TheoL,  IV.  99. 

The  oldest  work  belonging  here  would  be  the  N.  T.  of  Jac.  Beringer, 
which,  however,  was  prepared  in  a  spirit  favorable  to  the  Reformation 
(§  472).  Hostile  to  it  :  the  N.  T.  of  H.  Emser,  L.  1527  and  freq.,  is 
Luther's  revised  according  to  the  Vulgate  ;  repeated  in  the  Bible  of  J. 
Dietenberger,  Mayence,  1534  and  freq.,  which  was  gotten  up  in  the  same 
way,  and  in  that  of  J.  Eck,  Ingolst.  1537  and  freq.,  in  which  the  O.  T. 
was  translated  anew  from  the  Vulgate.  Some  portions  were  transferred 
outright  from  Protestant  editions,  as  the  Apocrypha  from  the  Ziirich 
version. 

As  a  specimen  of  Catholic  polemics  the  following  may  serve  in  place  of 
many  others  :  J.  Th.  A.  Berghauer,  Bi/3Ato/xaxe/a,  d.  i.  bihllscher  Feldzug  und 
Musterung  vieler  (also  post-Lutheran)  Jdmmerlich  verfdlschten  Bibeln,  etc., 
Ober-Ammergau,  1746,  4*^. 

480.  In  France  the  circulation  of  the  Bible  among  the 
Catholics  progressed  more  slowly,  because  there  it  was  carried 
on  even  among  the  Reformed  almost  wholly  from  without.  Li 
the  country  itself  there  was  printed  only  the  Bible  of  Guyars 
des  Moulins  and  his  continuators,  in  part  poorly  and  scholasti- 
cally  annotated.  The  woi'k  of  Le  Fevre  no  longer  belonged  to 
its  native  country,  and  in  Belgium  wag  reconciled  to  the 
Church  by  the  learning  and  diligence  of  the  Louvain  theolo- 
gians. A  native  attempt  by  a  member  of  the  Paris  theological 
school,  that  chief  protectress  of  the  purity  of  the  faith,  brought 
its  author  endless  trouble  and  the  people  no  good.  Down  to 
the  time  of  the  Bourbons  the  cause  of  the  Church  was  generally 
fought  with  other  weapons  than  those  of  the  Scriptures. 

On  the  editions  of  Guyars,  see  §  468. 

The  oldest  French  Bibles  containing  the  text  alone,  literally  translated, 
are  those  printed  at  Antwerp  by  Martin  Lempereur,  1530,  1534,  1541,  fol. 
(La  Sainte  Bible  en  francoys  translatee  selon  la  pure  et  entiere  traduction  de 
S.  Hierome,  etc.,  without  any  statement  as  to  its  authorship  ;  cf.  §  473). 
The  N.  T.  frequently  separately,  by  various  printers,  or  at  least  for  various 


CATHOLIC  -  VULGATE.  499 

publishers.  So  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the  different  editions  of  this 
series,  they  vary  considerably  in  text  and  in  the  additions  in  the  inargin. 

It  was  subjected  to  a  revision  which,  if  not  official,  at  least  greatly 
improved  its  circulation,  by  the  Louvain  theologians,  N.  de  Leuze  and  others, 
1550,  and  in  this  form,  with  many  revisions  (P.  de  Besse,  1G08,  P.  Frizon, 
1621,  F.  Veron,  1647),  but  on  the  whole  with  little  variation  in  the  different 
recensions,  it  continued  for  a  full  century  to  be  the  real  French  Catholic 
version.  The  numerous  editions  were  all  printed  at  Antwerp,  Paris,  Rouen, 
or  Lyons. 

Cf.  Le  Long,  I.  329,  336  :  R.  Simon,  Versions,  p.  339  ;  Baumgarten, 
Nachr.,  VII.  192  ;   Unsch.  Nachr.,  1735,  p.  567. 

For  the  history  of  the  Bible  of  Rene  Benoist  (P.  1566,  fol.  ;  the  N.  T. 
frequently  in  the  above-mentioned  four  cities),  see  Rosenmiiller,  Handh., 
IV.  353. 

481.  The  Catholic  Church  as  such  did  not  trouble  herself 
with  undertakings  of  this  kind,  which  were  always  designed 
onl}^  to  meet  special  needs.  Holding  unswervingly  to  her 
traditions,  and  recognizing  therein  the  secret  of  her  streno-th, 
she  was  and  continued  to  be  the  Latin  Church,  and  allowed 
no  Bible  to  be  appropriate  for  church  use,  or  valid  as  the  rule 
of  faith,  but  her  time-honored  Vulgate,  which  was  at  the  same 
time  a  world-wide  sign  of  her  unity.  But  when  the  rej^eated 
reprints  of  it  immediately  after  the  discovery  of  printing 
brought  to  light  clearly  for  the  first  time  the  lamentable  state 
of  its  text,  and  many  mistaken  attempts  at  improvement, 
varying  in  design  and  aids,  had  begun  to  threaten  it  with 
a  yet  greater  danger,  there  came  to  the  Church  the  imperative 
task  of  purifying  and  fixing  it,  in  order  that  there  miglit  be  no 
more  dispute  on  questions  of  genuineness  and  text.  The  fact 
that  the  Catholic  Church  stood  by  the  version,  instead  of  going 
back  to  the  original,  is  to  be  explained  from  her  point  of  view, 
which  was  rather  practical  than  dogmatic,  as  before  in  her  ar- 
rangement of  the  Canon,  and  should  least  of  all  be  objected  to 
by  Protestants,  who  soon  even  outdid  their  opponents  in  this 
respect. 

No  book  was  more  frequently  printed  in  the  period  immediately  after  the 
discovery  of  printing  than  the  Latin  Bible  —  more  than  one  hundred  times 
down  to  1520.  See  the  larger  bibliographical  works,  especially  Masch,  II., 
Pt.  3.  The  date  and  place  of  the  oldest  edition  are  still  disputed.  The 
older  opinion  declares  for  Mayence,  1462,  by  Fust  and  Schoffer  (by  whom 
certainly  the  oldest  dated  Psalter,  1457  ;  see  Schelhorn,  in  Riederer's  A  hhh., 
p.  1).  Others  go  back  to  Gutenberg,  1450.  It  is  certain  that  several  undated 
editions  form  the  beginning.  (See  Seemiller,  De  edit,  moguntina  hihl.  a.  1^63, 
Ingolst.  1785.)  The  oldest  editions  besides  are  of  Strassburg,  Cologne,  Basle. 
None  out  of  Germany  before  1471.  Cf.  also  Meyer,  Gesch.  der  Schrifterkl., 
1. 186  ff.  Some  of  the  oldest  editions  are  also  described  by  Zapf,  I.  c,  §  469. 
I  have  in  my  own  possession  an  undated  edition,  printed  with  very  uneven 
type,  which  shows  at  the  close  (by  a  later  hand)  the  date  1460.  But  tliis  is 
doubtless  an  error,  and  the  copy  probably  belongs  to  the  so-called  Biimler 
edition,  and   should   be   imprinted  Eggesteyn,  Strassburg,  1466-68.      See 


500  HISTORY  OF  THE  VEESIONS. 

Ebert,  Nachr.,  2278  ;  J.  F.  Lichtenberger,  lEclaircissements  sur  la  Bible  latine 
dite  de  Baemler,  in  the  Mag.  Encych,  1806. 

The  printers  naturally  made  use  of  the  next  best  MS.,  or  of  an  older 
edition.  The  variation  of  text  arising  therefrom  is  very  great,  but  has  never 
been  thoroughly  investigated.  The  editions  are  classified  by  bibliograpliers 
simply  by  external  cliaracteristics,  as  dated  or  undated,  or  by  certain  addi- 
tions, e.  g.,  the  subscription  in  verse  :  Fontibus  ex  greeds  hehrceorum  quoque 
libris,  etc.,  from  which  Van  Ess,  p.  171,  understands  a  recension  from  the 
original  text,  whereas  it  is  in  reality  nothing  but  a  printers'  puff  (occurring 
in  many  editions  since  1479)  ;  also  a  glossary  of  the  biblical  proper  names, 
concordances  or  parallel  passages,  finally  the  marginal  numbering  (§  386), 
by  which  the  chapters  are  divided  into  sections  by  means  of  letters,  for  con- 
venience of  reference,  which  appears  from  about  1480  on  in  the  N.  T.,  and 
was  finally  introduced  into  the  O.  T.  also  by  Froben,  Basle,  1491,  and  from 
that  time  passed  over  into  the  Bibles  in  other  languages,  down  to  the  time 
of  verse  division. 

The  first  critical  care  bestowed  upon  the  text  was  by  the  editors  of  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot  (§  399),  who  placed  it  between  the  LXX.  and  the  Hebrew, 
as  the  Roman  Church,  representing  Jesus,  stands  between  the  Synagogue  and 
the  Greek  Church,  which  represent  the  two  robbers.     (Pi-olegomeiia.) 

In  the  period  immediately  following  scholars  ventured  (the  Dominican 
Santes  Pagninus,  see  Leusden,  PhUnl.  hebr.,  p.  409,  Baumgarten,  Hal.  Bibl., 
1. 187,  Cardinal  Cajetanus,  Bishop  Augustinus  Steuchus,  ISliS  ff.)  to  pass  over 
the  Vulgate  and  give  to  the  public  Latin  versions  of  the  Bible  or  of  particular 
portions  of  it  secundum  hebr.  veritatcm,  etc.  ;  a  fact  which  is  to  be  explained 
from  the  very  perplexity  of  the  schools  at  so  confused  a  text. 

The  improvements  of  Robt.  Stephens  (N.  T.  1523,  Bible  1528  and  freq.  ; 
an  especially  fine  edition,  1540,  fol.,  1545,  in  two  columns,  with  the  Zurich 
Latin  version)  were  not  allowed  to  pass  so  easily,  because  they  were  dog- 
matically suspicious,  and  attempted,  doubtless  not  without  design,  silently  to 
substitute  the  new  for  the  old. 

Another  improved  Vulgate,  likewise  from  the  original  text,  was  published 
by  the  Benedictine  Isid.  Clarius,  Ven.  1542. 

On  this  stage  of  the  history  of  the  Vulgate,  of.  in  general  Kaulen,  I.  c, 
p.  318  ff. 

482.  This  task  tlie  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Trent  recognized 
as  a  duty  of  the  Church,  after  giving  to  the  work  itself  the 
honor  and  dignity  of  sole  authority.  The  theologians  of  the 
University  of  Louvain  immediately  took  up  the  matter ;  but 
their  work,  having  been  undertaken  upon  their  own  responsi- 
bility, seemed  to  lack  the  proper  warrant.  The  Popes  them- 
selves appointed  a  committee  for  the  preparation  of  a  standard 
edition  ;  but  it  accomplislied  nothing,  and  Sixtus  V.,  energetic 
and  impatient,  at  last  took  hold  of  the  matter  himself,  and  did 
in  a  short  time  what  ought  to  have  been  the  work  of  a  whole 
life.  His  successor,  Clement  VIII.,  was  induced  to  suppress 
the  Sixtine  Bible,  and  to  replace  it  by  one  supposed  to  be 
better,  which  has  since  that  time  remained  unchanged,  and  still 
drags  along  its  defects,  to  Catholic  criticism  a  sacred  thing, 
not  to  be  meddled  with,  and  to  Protestant  a  far  too  uninviting 
field. 


VULGATE  — SIXTINE   AND   CLEMENTINE  EDITIONS.      601 

Condi.  Trident.,  Sess.  IV.  (April  8,  1546)  :  SS.  Synodus,  comiderans 
non  parum  utilitatis  accedere  posse  ecclesice  si  ex  omnibus  latinis  edd.  quce 
circumferuntur  ss.  II.  qucenam  pro  aulhentica  habenda  sit  innotescat,  statuit  et 
declarat  ut  lime  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata  editio,  quce  longo  tot  sceculorum  usu  probata 
est,  in  publicis  lectionibus,  disjMlationibus,  prcedicationibus,  et  expositionibus  pro 
authentica  habeatur,  et  ut  nemo  illam  rejicere  quovis  prcetextu  audeat  vel 
prcesumat  .  .  .  decrevit  et  statuit  ut  posthac  SS.  potissimum  vero  hcec  ipsa  vetus 
et  vulgata  editio  quam  emendatissime  imprimatur. 

As  to  the  sense  and  bearing  of  this  decree  (which  was  only  adopted  in 
the  Council  itself  after  much  discussion  ;  see  the  extracts  from  Sarpi,  Pal- 
lavicini,  and  others,  in  Van  Ess,  p.  188  flf.),  there  has  been  much  controversy 
and  misunderstanding  down  to  the  present  day,  both  within  and  without  the 
Romish  Church  ;  see  Van  Ess,  p.  401  ff.  ;  idem,  Pragmatica  doctorum  cath. 
tridentini  cone.  Vulgatam  decreti  sensum  testantium  historia,  1816  ;  R.  Simon, 
V.  T.,  p.  204  ;  Calovius,  Crit.  s.,  p.  209  ff. ;  Sixt.  Amama,  Antibarbarus  bibl., 
Bk.  I.  ;  C.  J.  Herber,  De  vers.  vulg.  ex  decreto  trid.  authentica,  Br.  1815  ; 
Alzog,  Syst.  cathol.  explic.  SS.,  p.  5  ff.  ;  Welte,  in  the  Quartalschr.,  1845, 
I.,  III. ;  Winer,  Compar.  Darstell.,  p.  39.  The  defenders  of  the  Council  and 
liberal  theologians  assert  that  it  only  intended  to  give  the  Vulgate  the  pref- 
erence over  later  versions  ;  its  opponents  and  the  stricter  theologians  that  it 
designed  to  set  aside  the  original  text.  The  chief  design  was  probably  to  set 
up  the  current  Church  version  as  an  authentic  exposition  of  the  original  text, 
in  order  to  guard  so  far  as  possible  against  arbitrary  interjiretation  of 
Scripture.  Cf.  also  the  Regulce  indie.  II.  prohibitorum,  1504,  apjjroved  by 
Pius  IV.,  in  which  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  heretical  versions  and  in  the 
vernacular  languages  is  strictly  forbidden  (§  499). 

Edition  of  the  Lou  vain  theologians  (Jo.  Hentenius),  1547,  fol.  and  freq.  ; 
last,  N.  T.,  Cologne,  1592  ;  not  approved. 

Bihlia  sacra  vulgata;  editionis  Sixti  V.  Pont.  Max.  jussu  recognita  atque  edita, 
Rome,  1590,  3  vols,  fol.,  with  the  bull  (like  the  edition  itself,  suppressed) 
jEternus  ille,  which  forbids  any  future  alteration.  Only  a  few  copies  of  this 
edition  have  been  preserved,  in  larger  libraries,  since  immediately  after  the 
Pope's  death  (August,  1590),  it  was  withdrawn.  This  measure  has  been 
variously  explained.  Van  Ess  is  of  the  opinion  (p.  203  ff.)  that  Jesuitical 
intrigues  were  at  the  bottom  of  it  (by  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  who  was  after- 
ward editor  of  the  Clementine  edition,  1592).  Kaulen  (p.  444  ff.)  finds  the 
cause  substantially  in  the  uncritical  haste  of  the  Pope,  and  his  ridiculous 
method  of  expunging  errors  discovered.  But  the  undeniable  fact  that  the 
Clementine  text,  of  the  N.  T.  at  least,  in  numerous  passages  follows  the 
printed  original  text  against  the  Latin  MSS.,  while  the  Sixtine,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  more  true  to  that  of  the  Vulgate  as  autlienticated  by  MSS.,  might 
give  at  least  some  support  to  still  another  explanation.  An  exceedingly  incon- 
venient weakness  was  thereby  covered.  True,  so  long  as  the  textual  criti- 
cism of  the  Vulgate  is  not  more  thorough  than  it  is  at  present,  this  must  re- 
main a  mere  conjecture.  But  it  is  to  my  mind  a  very  striking  fact  that  the 
Waldensian  and  Catharic  versions,  as  a  rule,  agree  with  Sixtus  against  Clem- 
ent, I.  e.,  that  in  former  times  the  Sixtine  i-eadings  were  the  more  widely 
current  ;  it  would  be  worth  while  to  follow  up  this  clue  and  see  if  the  source 
of  the  Clementine  recension  could  not  be  discovered.  For  a  convenient 
summary  of  the  two  recensions  see  Lucas  Brugensis,  Rom.  correctionis  loca 
insigniora,  Antw.  1003  (also  in  the  Biblia  Maxima  (§  552),  XVIII.)  ;  cf. 
also  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1749,  p.  311.  [See  Westcott's  Art.  Vulgate,  in  Smith's 
Diet.,  IV.  3407  ff.] 

The  Protestants  have  naturally  taken  delight  in  this  piece  of  infallibility : 
Th.  James,  Bellum  papale  s.  concordia  discors  Sixti  V.  et  dementis  VIII., 
Lond.  1000.  The  papal  apologists  assert  that  Sixtus  himself  discovered  so 
many  "  typographical  errors  "  that  he  was  only  prevented  by  liis  death  from 
undertaking  the  new  revision  himself. 


502  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

The  numberless  editions  of  the  Latin  Bible  since  1592  (although  even  the 
next  two,  1593  and  1598,  vary  here  and  there,  and  an  Index  locc.  corrigen- 
dorum  is  generally  inserted  in  the  latter),  being  mere  repetitions  of  the 
Clementine  text,  have  no  interest  for  us.  They  are  completely  catalogued 
in  Masch  do\vn  to  1780  ;  since  that  time  nowhere.  For  manual  use  the  edi- 
tion of  L.  van  Ess,  Tiib.  1822,  3  vols.  8°,  may  be  recommended,  which  has 
the  Sixtine  readings  in  the  margin.  Accordmg  to  Welte  (^Tilh.  Quartalschr., 
1855,  I.  159)  the  Plantine  editions  (Antw.  1G03  ff.),  and  their  reprints, 
which  were  most  widely  current  outside  of  Italy,  did  not  remain  altogether 
faithful  to  the  Roman  standard  editions,  but  allowed  themselves  here  and 
there  to  be  led  astray  by  Lucas  Brugensis. 

Even  to-day,  after  an  interval  of  almost  three  hundred  years,  there  is  as 
yet  scarcely  any  prospect  of  a  work  upon  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  correspond- 
ing to  the  demands  of  modern  science.  Yet  even  the  Catholic  theology  it- 
self seems  not  to  be  unaware  of  the  need  of  such  a  work.  At  least  a  vast 
collection  has  been  begun  by  the  Barnabite  Car.  Vercellone  at  Rome  : 
Varice  lectiones  vulg.  lat.  bihliorum  editionis,  Vol.  I.,  Pentatevich,  Rome,  1860, 
4°  ;  Vol.  XL,  Pt.  I.,  Historical  Books,  1862.  [Pt.  11. 1864  ;  unfinished,  but 
a  very  important  work.] 

483.  When  the  Reformation  had  everywhere  come  to  its 
conckision  and  men  began  to  consider  more  cahnly  the  work  of 
the  early  zeal,  the  development  of  the  modern  languages,  which 
had  awakened  to  more  vigorous  life,  as  well  as  the  progress  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  soon  made  the  defects  of  the 
current  versions  felt,  and  there  was  nowhere  any  lack  of  new 
works  or  revisions,  or  at  least  emendations.  Luther's  work 
alone  no  irreverent  criticism  was  permitted  to  touch,  not  be- 
cause it  was  really  incapable  of  improvement,  but  in  conse- 
quence of  that  strict  and  tenacious  adherence  to  old  customs 
which  generally  distinguished  the  Lutheran  Church  above  all 
her  sisters.  But  it  is  only  fair  to  say  that  his  opponents  often 
regarded  as  faults  what  are  really  his  excellences,  and  that  no 
one  of  them  was  able  to  produce  anything  that  even  approached 
him,  to  say  nothing  of  anything  better. 

The  version  begun  by  J.  Saubert,  in  1665,  under  the  commission  of  Duke 
Augustus  of  Brunswick-Liineburg  (printed  as  far  as  1  Sam.  xvii.),  has  be- 
come a  bibliographical  curiosity  ;  it  was  attacked  even  before  it  was  pub- 
lished, and  immediately  suppressed  in  the  following  year,  after  the  Duke's 
death  ;  see  H.  Conring,  Ep.  gratul.  ad  ducem,  etc.,  Helmst.  1666  ;  Walch, 
Bihl.  TkeoL,  IV.  114  ;  Zeltner,  De  novis  verss.,  p.  125  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachr., 
VIII.  300  ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1720,  p.  800  ;  1722,  p.  710. 

Not  until  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  the  correctness  and  suf- 
ficiency of  Luther's  version  really  called  in  question,  and  then  by  the  Pietists, 
for  whom  it  was  too  free  (§  558  f.)  ;  A.  H.  Franke,  Obt^s.  hiblicce  oder  An- 
merkk.  iiber  einige  Oerter  h.  S.  darinnen  die  teiitsche  Uebers.  des  sel.  Luther 
gegen  den  Originaltext  gehalten,  etc.,  H.  1695,  especially  pj).  236-572.  (M. 
Beck,  Versio  Lutheri  a  censura  Frankii  vindicata,  Ulm,  1700.)  Later  :  H.  S. 
Reimarus,  Anim.  crit.  ad  vers.  Lutheri,  printed  from  the  MS.  in  Rosenmiil- 
ler's  Syll.,  III.  ;  J.  V.  Zehner,  Probe  einer  Verbesserung  der  deutschen  Bihel- 
ubers.,  1750. 

Against  this  criticism  and  the  series  of  new  translations  which  began  soon 
after  :  G.  G.  Zeltner,  De  novis  bibl.  germ,  verss.  non  temere  vulgandis,  Altd. 


LUTHER'S  VERSION  —  CRITICISM  AND   REVISION.        503 

(1707)  ;  J.  Fecht,  De  controv.  recentt.  c.  vers,  luth.,  1709  ;  F.  A.  Hallbauer, 
Anim.  theol.  in  licentiam  novas  germ.  s.  cod.  versiones  condendi,  Jena,  1742  ;  J. 
G.  Stopel,  Memoria  translationis  Luth.,  L.  1735  ;  C.  S.  Georgi,  De  versione  L. 
omnium  optima,  Witt.  1737  ;  F.  A.  Augusti,  Vertheidigung  der  Version  Luth., 
1750. 

But  meanwhile  the  (very  modest)  attempts  at  improvement  went  on  with- 
out interruption,  more,  indeed,  as  they  had  begun  immediately  after  Luther's 
death,  without  thorough  exegetical  criticism.  We  may  mention  here  the 
projects  or  editions  of  J.  Weller,  Chief  Court  Preacher  at  Dresden,  Prett, 
pastor  at  Naumburg,  Nic.  Haas,  of  Bautzen,  Ch.  Reineccius  of  Leipzig, 
Bernhard  in  Stendal,  Sartorius  and  Hedinger  in  Wurtemberg,  especially 
Dieckmann,  Superintendent  at  Stade  (1703)  ;  also  Canstein's  establisliment 
(§484)  ;  Pfaff's  Polyglot,  1729,  in  which  the  emendations  were  placed  be- 
neath the  text  ;  finally  J.  M.  Goze  (a  careful  collation  of  the.  original  edi- 
tions of  Luther's  version),  an  uncompleted  revision. 

484.  Luther's  version  was  also  the  first  to  win  the  deserved 
honor  of  being  clieaply  and  abundantly  circulated  among  the 
people  by  piety  and  commercial  enterprise  combined.  Its  in- 
ner worth  was  such  that  it  would  not  have  needed  this  aid  in 
order  to  put  aside  all  competition.  However  much  in  after 
times  the  Church  was  tossed  to  and  fro  on  the  troubled  sea  of 
opinions,  Luther's  Bible  was  still  in  the  school  and  home,  and 
was  always  the  anchor  that  led  it  back  again  to  solid  ground. 
The  other  religious  bodies  which  spoke  German  also  made  use 
of  it,  and  their  attempts  to  escape  from  this  influence  or  to  do 
away  with  this  sign  of  intellectual  impotence  often  only  re- 
vealed the  more  clearly  its  truth. 

C.  H.  V.  Canstein,  a  friend  of  A.  H.  Franke  (f  1719)  first  conceived  the 
idea  of  making  the  Bible  cheap  by  printing  it  from  standing  type,  and 
foimded  for  this  purpose,  in  1710,  at  Halle  (Orphanage),  the  still  existing 
Bible  House  (afterward  named  after  him),  which  has  circulated  millions  of 
copies,  in  more  than  six  hundred  editions,  in  various  styles  and  sizes,  at  ex- 
ceedingly low  prices,  and  which  has  also  exerted  some  influence  on  the 
form  of  the  text.  See  Canstein's  Um^tdndl.  Nachricht,  etc.,  Halle  (1714)  ; 
Lilienthal,  Exeg.  Bibl.,  p.  80  ;  Lork,  Bihelgesch.,  II.  476  ;  A.  H.  Niemeyer, 
Geschichte  der  canstein.  Bihelanstalt,  Halle,  1827  ;  Osw.  Bertram,  Gesch.  der 
canst.  Bihelanstalt,  Halle,  1863. 

Beside  the  Lutheran,  there  were  prepared  in  or  for  Germany  Reformed 
translations,  by  David  Pareus,  1579  ;  by  J.  Piscator,  1602  ;  the  latter  fre- 
quently printed  ;  the  N.  T.  by  Amandus  Polanus  of  Polansdorf,  1603  ;  also 
a  Socinian,  by  J.  Crell,  1630,  and  one  said  to  be  Arminian,  at  least  suspected 
of  it,  by  Jer.  Felbinger,  1660.  See  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  11.  195  ;  Lilien- 
thal, I.  c,  101. 

485.  In  all  other  Protestant  lands  the  temporal  and  spiritual 
authorities  applied  themselves  to  the  business  of  revision  with 
beautiful  harmony.  There  were  to  be  translations  not  only 
better,  but  authenticated  and,  so  to  speak,  guaranteed  by  the 
Church.  The  important  work  was  for  the  most  part  not  en- 
trusted to  single  men,  but  a  selection  was  made  of  the  most 
learned,  and  to  them  was  given  the  honorable  commission, 
here  by  kings  or  princes,  there  by  synods  or  colleges.     For  it 


604  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

is  only  youthful  enthusiasm  that  throws  itself,  in  the  spirit  of 
childhood,  into  the  arms  of  a  single  leader  ;  a  more  mature 
and  sober  age,  distrustful,  scarcely  follows  several.  And  so 
arose  in  the  coarse  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  still  curi-ent 
versions  of  the  non-German  Evangelical  national  Churches, 
some  of  them  more,  others  less  changed  from  that  time  on. 

Switzerland  obtained  in  1665  a  wholly  new  translation,  made  at  Ziirich, 
upon  which  J.  H.  Hottinger,  C.  Suicer,  P.  Fiisslin,  and  others  were  engaged. 
(A  new  edition,  revised  in  language,  1772.  See  Grimm's  Stromata,  II.  94.) 
J.  J.  Breitinger's  Nachrichten  von  dem  Collegio  biblico  zu  Zurich,  in  Simm- 
ler's  Samml.,  I.  3  ;  II.  1. 

England  was  obliged  to  change  once  more  when  the  theologian-king  James 
I.  brought  out,  in  1611,  his  Royal  Version,  upon  which  forty-seven  scholars, 
divided  into  six  colleges,  had  been  engaged  for  seven  years.  These  colleges, 
which  had  divided  the  Bible  amongst  them,  three  for  the  O.  T.,  two  for  the 
N.  T.,  one  for  the  Apocrypha,  worked  two  each  at  Westminster,  Cambridge, 
and  Oxford.  No  names  renowned  in  science  are  found  among  them.  For 
details  see  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl,  VII.  102,  and  the  general  works  cited 
in  §  475.  As  an  exegetical  work  this  Bible  is  praiseworthy  for  its  time, 
though  its  diction  now  sounds  very  antiquated.  [On  the  origin  and  history 
of  King  James'  Version  see  Plumptre's  Art.  Version,  Authorized,  in  Smith's 
Diet.,  to  wliich  is  appended  a  very  full  bibliography  by  Dr.  Abbot ;  also 
Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Gk.  Test.,  N.  Y.  1883,  p.  29J  £f.  —  Editions  :  The 
editio  princeps,  1611  :  The  Holy  Bible,  Conteipiing  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New ;  Newly  Translated  out  of  the  Originall  Tongues  ;  and  with  the  former 
Translations  diligently  compared  and  reuised,  by  his  Maiesties  speciall  Com- 
mandement.  Appointed  to  be  read  in  Churches.  Imprinted  at  London  by  Robert 
Barker,  Printer  to  the  Kings  most  Excellent  Maiestie.  Anno  Dom.  1611.  Fol. 
Many  copies  omit  the  line  Appointed  to  be  read  in  Churches  in  the  sjiecial 
title  to  the  New  Testament,  and  some  even  in  the  general  title  to  the  whole 
•work.  — Oxford  reprint,  1833  :  the  folio  edition  of  1811  reprinted  from  an. 
Oxford  cojiy,  page  for  page,  m  quasi  fac-simile.  Contains  the  Dedication, 
Preface,  and  a  list  of  variations  between  the  editions  of  1611  and  1613.  — 
The  best  critical  edition  of  Kuig  James'  Version  is  that  of  Dr.  Scrivener  : 
The  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible  of  the  Authorized  English  Version,  ivith  the 
text  revised  by  a  collation  of  its  early  and  other  principial  editions,  the  use  of  the 
italic  type  made  uniform,  the  marginal  references  remodelled,  and  a  critical  in- 
troduction prefixed  by  the  Rev.  F.  H.  A.  Scrivener,  etc.,  Cambr.  1873,  4°  ;  with 
modern  spelling.  —  The  standard  edition  of  the  Am.  Bible  Society  is  the 
imperial  octavo  of  1882,  based  upon  the  Society's  final  revision  of  I860.] 

In  Holland  attianpts  were  early  made  to  replace  the  Lutheran  version  by 
a  direct  one.  Thus  there  appeared  in  1556  the  N.  T.  of  J.  Uitenhoven,  in 
1562  the  whole  Bible,  little  altered  in  the  O.  T.  ;  in  1587  the  Bible  of  P. 
Hackius,  mostly  after  the  Geneva  version.  In  the  year  1618  the  Synod  of 
Dordrecht  ordered  the  preparation  of  a  new  cluirch  version,  and  appointed 
for  the  work  a  commission  of  twenty-two  members  (among  whom,  for  the 
O.  T.  Jan  Bogermann,  for  the  N.  T.  Ant.  Walseus  did  the  most).  The 
work  was  published  in  1637  under  public  authority  (State  Bible).  See 
Leusden,  Philol.  hebr.  gr.,  Diss.  IX.  ;  Philol.  hebr.  mixtus,  Diss.  X.,  XI.  ;  Is. 
le  Long,  Boekzaal  der  nederduytsche  Bybels,  Amst.  1732,  2d  ed.  1764,  4°  (be- 
gins with  Adam  and  Eve)  ;  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl.,  V.  1  ;  Nachr.,  IV. 
471  ff.  ;  Fabricius,  Hist,  biblioth.,  I.  36  ;  Nic.  Hinlopen,  Hist,  van  d,  nederl. 
Overzettinge  des  Bybels,  Leyd.  1777. 

The  Remonstrants  obtained,  in  1680,  a  translation  of  their  own,  by  Ch. 
Hartsoeker. 


CURRENT  VERSIONS  IN  OTHER  LANDS.       505 

The  Danish  versiou  is  a  work  completed  in  1607  by  P.  J.  Resenius,  re- 
vised in  1647  by  J.  Svauing.  See  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bihl.,  VI.  1 ;  Nachr., 
VI.  289. 

The  Icelandic  received  its  permanent  form  from  Thorlacius  Sculonius, 
1644  ;  see  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  VI.  283.  It  is  now  printed,  like  the  other 
church  versions,  also  by  the  London  Bible  Society. 

The  Svvedisli  version  was  improved  in  various  ways  by  J.  Rudbeck  and 
J.  Lenaeus,  1618  ;  by  Erich  Benzel,  1703.  It  was  not  until  the  time  of  Gus- 
tavus  III.  (1774  ff.)  that  an  official  revision  took  place  (at  first  as  a  Profof- 
wersdttning),  in  which  all  learned  Sweden  had  a  part,  but  which  resulted 
rather  paraphrastically.  J.  A.  Schinmeyer,  Vollsldndige  Geschichte  der  schwe- 
dischen  Bibeliibers.,  1777  ff.,  4  Pts.  4°;  MichaeUs,  Bibl.,  X.  140. 

486.  Of  all  the  lands  where  the  Reformation  had  taken  root, 
in  France  alone  no  national  version  had  come  into  existence. 
But  nowhere  else  had  the  adherents  of  the  purified  Gospel 
been  obliged  to  fight  so  ceaseless  and  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration unsuccessful  a  battle  for  their  freedom  of  conscience 
and  existence  as  a  Church.  At  the  time  of  the  bloom  of  the 
Protestant  theology  in  France  the  Geneva  version  had  already 
so  grown  into  the  life  of  the  people  that  a  new  one  was  not  to 
be  thought  of.  When  the  French  language  was  going  through 
its  so-called  classical  development,  in  the  sunshine  of  a  hostile 
court,  the  old  uncorrupted  Bible  language  was  doubly  dear  to 
the  hunted  Huguenots,  a  solace  in  distress  and  death.  In  later 
times  other  French  speaking  countries  have  undertaken  many 
changes  in  the  current  version  ;  these  have  proceeded  partly 
from  individual  Swiss  and  Walloon  preachers,  and  in  part  have 
been  the  periodical  fruit  of  that  training  which  the  Geneva 
clergy  had  received  as  a  legacy  from  the  great  reformer. 

The  first  thorough  revision  of  the  Olivetano-Calvinistic  Bible  by  tlie  Ven- 
erable Compagnie  at  Geneva,  under  the  guidance  of  C.  B.  Bertram,  1588. 
Other  similar  revisions,  1693,  1712,  1726,  1805,  and  of  the  N.  T.  1835,  by 
the  same  clerical  body,  the  last  two  much  modernized.  Also  by  individual 
clergymen  :  J.  Diodati,  Geneva,  1644 ;  S.  Desmarets,  Amst.  1669,  fol.  (very 
beautifully  gotten  up) ;  D.  Martin,  Utrecht,  N.  T.,  1696,  Bible,  1707  (P. 
Roques,  Basle,  1744,  is  substantially  the  same  recension);  J.  F.  Osterwald, 
Neuchatel,  1744  ;  the  last  a  much  more  thorough  revision.  (L.  Junod,  J. 
F.  Osterwald,  Neuch.  1863.) 

Between  the  time  of  the  religious  wars  and  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of 
Nantes  several  Protestant  Bibles  were  printed  in  France,  as  before,  most 
frequently  at  Lyons,  also  at  Caens,  Paris,  La  Rochelle,  Saumur,  Sedan, 
Charenton,  Queville,  Niort  ;  most  of  them,  however,  in  Basle,  in  French 
Switzerland,  and  in  Holland  ;  some  also,  for  refugees,  in  Halle  and  other 
German  cities.  From  1685  on  all  were,  of  course,  printed  without  the  coun- 
try. No  more  were  printed  in  the  country  itself  until  the  Bible  Society 
(1824).    There  is  no  satisfactory  liistory  of  the  French  version  in  existence. 

For  the  criticism  of  this  and  the  Catholic  versions  mentioned  m  §  488,  of. 
O.  Douen,  in  the  Sirassb.  Revue,  3d  series,  VI. 

487.  It  was  properly  through  these  versions  alone,  projected 
and  approved  by  the  Churches,  or  at  least  commended  by  gen- 
eral public  use,  that  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  among 


606  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

the  people  was  accomplished,  in  the  countries  named.  The 
other  works  which  might  be  compared  with  them,  by  individ- 
ual divines  and  scholars,  which  did  not  have  the  advantage  of 
such  commendation,  belong,  as  has  already  been  said,  not  to 
the  history  of  the  circulation,  but  to  that  of  the  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures.  In  the  Protestant  countries  of  Europe  more 
remote  from  us,  however,  down  to  the  second  half  of  the  last 
century,  but  few  of  these  were  produced  of  which  any  knowl- 
edge has  come  down  to  us.  Frenchmen  in  Holland  and  Ger- 
many produced  some  better  known  ones,  some  of  them  of  good 
and  some  of  evil  reputation.  In  the  German  language  the  at- 
tempts were  much  more  numerous.  But  they  either  fell  upon 
the  time  of  the  deepest  depression  of  the  language  and  of  taste, 
or  bore  the  stamp  of  a  religious  prejudice  which  was  sickly  and 
even  subversive  of  the  word,  and  those  of  the  most  honorable 
intent  were  distinguished  still  more  by  their  dullness  and  in- 
sipidity than  by  their  exegetical  fidelity. 

The  brave  but  unfortunate  Savoyard  Seb.  Chastillon  (Castalio,  Castellio), 
prominent  in  the  history  of  the  Swiss  Reformation,  who  also  prepared  a 
beautiful  Latin  version,  often  printed  even  down  to  modern  times,  published 
in  1555,  Basle,  2  vols,  fol.,  a  French  version,  in  which  he  attempted  to  con- 
form the  Bible  to  the  genius  of  the  French  language,  and  the  latter  to  his 
own.  He  singularly  failed  in  both  respects,  although  the  attempt  deserved 
neither  the  classic  scorn  of  H.  Stephens  nor  the  dogmatic  criticisms  of  the 
Calvinistic  zealots.  This  Bible  is  one  of  the  greatest  rarities.  There  was  a 
copy  at  Strassburg.  Cf.  J.  C.  Fiisslin,  S.  Castellio's  Leben,  1775  ;  also  Bibl. 
Hag.,  III.  ;  C.  R.  Brenner,  Essai  sur  S.  Chatillon,  Str.  1853  ;  Hagenbach, 
in  Herzog's  Encykl. ;  Jac.  Miihly,  Castellio,  Basle,  1862. 

Translation  of  the  N.  T.  by  J.  Le  Clerc,  Amst.  1703,  suspected  of  Armin- 
ianism  ;  the  Bible  of  C.  Le  Cene  (1697),  published  after  his  death,  at  Am- 
sterdam, 1742,  2  vols,  fol.,  charged  with  much  worse  heresies  ;  cf.  Baum- 
garten.  Hall.  Bibl,  VII.  15  ;  Unsch.  NacJir.,  1702,  p.  258  ;  Fruhaufgel. 
Fruchte,  1738,  p.  167.  The  best  and  most  celebrated  is  the  N.  T.  of  Is.  de 
Beausobre  and  Jae.  Lenfant,  Amst.  1718,  2  vols.  4°,  with  exegetical  addi- 
tions, afterward  frequently  printed  in  manual  editions  in  various  places  (also 
with  Luther,  Basle,  1746).  —  An  exceedingly  rare  version  of  the  Gospels  and 
Romans,  by  J.  G.  Stuber,  pastor  in  the  Steinthal,  1783  ff. 

German  translations  (Lutheran)  by  C.  E.  Triller,  1703;  J.  H.  Reiz,  1712  ; 
J.  J.  Junkherrott,  1732,  a  ludicrous  monstrosity  of  literalness  and  word- 
stickling  ;  C.  A.  Heumann,  1748  ;  J.  A.  Bengel,  1753 ;  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
1769  ff.  (§  567);  J.  G.  Sillig,  1778  f.  ;  G.  F.  Seller,  1783,  and  freq.  ;  J.  J. 
Stolz,  1795,  and  freq.  For  still  others  (Moldenhawer,  Rullmann,  Bolten, 
Thiess,  Zerrenner,  Hezel)  see  the  History  of  Exegesis. 

Especially  famous,  but  from  very  different  causes  :  the  so-called  Berle- 
burg  Bible  (a  translation  not  wholly  new,  by  J.  F.  Haug  and  others),  1726, 
8  vols,  fol.,  for  the  reverently  meditative  exposition  accompanying  it  ;  the 
translation  of  the  N.  T.  by  N.  L.  v.  Zinzendorf,  who  ventured  upon  the  un- 
dertaking of  rendering  the  "  coarse  speech  of  the  journeymen  of  Nazareth  " 
into  the  pedantic  style  of  the  German  nobility  of  his  time  (Biidingen,  1739), 
and  by  his  combination  of  naive  devoutness  with  triviality  caused  the  wrath 
of  the  orthodox  to  overflow  :  J.  H.  Benner,  Tirocinium  zinzendorfianum,  Giss. 
1742  ;  Hallbauer  (§  483) ;  T.  a  Veritate,  Das  zinzend.  Bibeldrgerniss,  Hild. 


CATHOLIC  VERSIONS.  507 

1740 ;  idem,  Nahere  BeleucUung,  etc.,  1741.  On  the  other  side,  P.  Miiller, 
De  tentamine,  etc.,  1743.     Of.  on  both  works  §  559.  , 

Also,  the  so-called  Wertheim  Bible,  i.  e.,  Die  gottl.  Schriften  vor  den  Zeiten 
des  Messie  Jesus,  Pt.  I.,  Die  Gesetze  der  Jisraelen,  Werth.  1735,  4°  (by  Joh. 
Lor.  Schmidt),  proscribed  and  confiscated  at  the  time,  but  even  now  very 
common.  J.  N.  Sinnhold,  Hist.  Nachricht  von  der  wertheimer  Bibel,  Erf.  1737; 
E.  F.  Neubauer,  Primitice  Giss.,  p.  61  ff.  ;  a  collection  of  [34]  writings  for 
and  against  the  Wertheim  Bible,  1738.  Tliis  collection,  however,  is  not 
complete.  Of.  also  Walch,  Misc.,  p.  159  £E. ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1737,  1738,  m 
the  Index  ;  Ed.  Reuss,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 

Finally  the  translation  of  the  N.  T.  by  the  notorious  C.  F.  Balirdt  (§  575). 

Of  the  Reformed  (Swiss)  we  mention  of  this  period  Sim.  Gryuseus,  Basle, 
1776  ;  Vogelin,  Zurich,  1781. 

In  England  also  several  new  translations  (or  rather  attempts  at  transla- 
tions in  different  exegetical  works)  came  into  existence  in  the  cours^e  of  the 
last  century  :  Humphrey  Prideaux,  see  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1722,  p.  85  ;  1723, 
p.  1072  ;  J.  Lookup,  see  Frilhaufgel.  Fruchte,  1740,  p.  173  ;  Ph.  Doddi-idge 
(§  569);  Ed.  Harwood,  17G8  ;  J.  Worsley,  1770  ;  by  an  anonymous  author 
(Mace),  a  suspected  Greek-English  edition,  1729  ;  see  §  409  and  Baumgar- 
ten.  Hall.  Bibl.,  IV.  208.     [See  the  historical  works  cited  under  §  475.] 

A  Swedish  translation  by  J.  A.  Tingstadt,  1783  ff.,  in  separate  parts  (Eich- 
horn,  Bibl.,  X.  516),  was  probably  never  completed. 

The  Danish  version  of  the  N.  T.  bv  Hoeg  Guldberg,  1794.  See  Eichhorn, 
IX.  581  ;  Haulein's  Journal,  V.  127." 

In  Holland  various  new  versions  of  the  N.  T.  appeared,  of  which,  how- 
ever, little  was  known  outside  the  country  :  C.  Cats,  1701,  accused  of  Socin- 
ianism  (Unsch.  Nachr.,  1718,  p.  Ill);  Ysbrand  van  Hamelsveld,  1789,  2 
vols.  ;  J.  H.  van  der  Palm,  1818  (Theol.  Annal,  1822,  p.  773);  G.  Vissering, 
a  Mennonite  preacher,  Amst.  1854,  and  freq. 

488.  Beside  all  these  works  undertaken  in  Protestant  tem- 
per and  purpose,  by  which,  in  connection  with  the  common 
aids  of  the  printing-press  and  trade,  the  Bible  was  circulated 
among  the  people  more  than  ever  before,  the  contemporaneous 
endeavors  of  (Catholics  should  not  be  forgotten.  The  latter, 
giving  up  their  former  hatred  and  antagonism,  began  to  inter- 
est themselves  in  the  matter  more  for  its  own  sake,  and  to 
realize  that  the  principles  and  the  entire  structure  of  the 
Church  must  be  made  to  conform  to  the  imperative  demand 
of  the  time.  Yet  this  took  place  only  where  they  were  in 
living  contact  with  Protestants,  and  where  science  was  equally 
developed  in  both  circles,  —  hence  more  especially  in  France 
and  Germany.  In  both  these  countries  versions  multiplied,  and 
with  them  the  number  of  readers ;  in  the  former  favored  mostly 
by  the  movements  of  Jansenism,  that  Roman  Lutheranism ;  in 
the  latter  especially  as  an  early  fruit  of  the  Josephine  spirit. 
Moreover,  these  Catholic  versions  are  more  important  than  the 
last  mentioned  Protestant  ones,  because  they  made  their  way 
among  the  people  more. 

Germany  :  The  version  of  the  convert  Caspar  Ulenberg,  Cologne,  1630 
and  freq.,  became,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  national  version,  displacing  the 
earlier  ones  (§  479)  ;  in  later  recensions  by  the  Mayence  Jesuits,  1661  ;  by 


508  IIISTOliY   OF   THE    VERSIONS. 

Th.  Aq.  EbrliarcT,  a  Benedictine  of  Wessobruiui,  1722  ;  by  tbe  Benedictines 
of  Ettenbeini-Miinster  (D.  G.  Cartier)  1751,  with  and  without  the  Vulgate, 
in  beautiful  folio  editions. 

Later  versions  by  C.  Salzmann,  Lux.  1770  ;  M.  A.  Wittola,  Vienna,  1775  ; 
Ign.  Weitenauer,  Augsb.  1777  if.,  with  Vulgate,  14  vols.  ;  J.  Fleischiitz, 
Fuld.  1778  ;  F.  Rosaliuo,  Vienna,  1781;  C.  Fischer,  Prague,  1784  and  freq.; 
H.  Braun,  Vienna,  1786  and  freq.;  Jos.  Lauber,  1786  ;  S.  Mutschelle,  Munich, 
1789  ;  B.  Weyl,  Mayence,  1789  ;  J.  G.  Krach,  Augsb.  1790;  D.  von  Brentano, 
Kempt.  1790  ;  Anon.,  Vienna,  1792  ;  J.  Babor,  1805,  mostly  only  the  N.  T. 
See  also  Werner's  Geschichte  der  kath.  TheoL,  p.  272  f. 

France  :  Versions  by  Claude  DevUle,  1613  ;  Jaq.  Corbin,  a  parliamentary 
lawyer,  1643  ;  Michel  de  MaroUes,  Abbe  de  Villeloin,  1649  aud  freq.  ;  the 
Oratorian  Denys  Amelotte,  1666  and  freq.  ;  Ch.  Hure,  1702  ;  Domin. 
Bouhours,  a  Jesuit,  1703  and  freq.  ;  all  of  the  N.  T.  only.  The  Abbe 
de  Marolles  also  began,  in  1671,  a  version  of  the  O.  T.,  but  it  was  suppressed  ; 
some  copies  of  it,  however,  have  been  preserved,  extending  to  Lev.  xxiii. 
(Ebert). 

Special  attention  was  aroused  by  the  (anonymous)  version  of  the  N.  T.  by 
E,.  Simon,  Trevoux,  1702.  It  was  accused  of  Sociuianism  by  Bossuet,  and 
condemned  by  Cardinal  de  Noailles.  See  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1703, 1705,  passim  ■ 
Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bihl.,  VI.  381  ;  Graf,  in  the  Strassb.  Beitr.,  I.  229.  There 
were  cancels  printed  for  the  most  offensive  pages,  which  in  my  copy  are  oidy 
bound  in.  The  author  did  not  venture  to  come  out  with  the  O.  T.  at  all.  Cf. 
Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  X.  471.  The  N.  T.  translated  into  English  by  W. 
Webster,  1730. 

Jansenist  version,  in  various  recensions  and  variously  known  (^Version 
de  Port  Royal,  Version  de  Mons,  etc.)  by  Ant.  and  Isaac  Louis  Lemaitre  de 
Sacy,  Ant.  Arnauld,  P.  Nicole,  and  other  teachers  at  Port  Royal  (see  Reuch- 
lin,  Gesch.  von  Port  Royal,  Hamb.  1839  f.),  whose  respective  parts  in  the 
different  editions  are  not  well  known,  though  Is.  L.  Lemaitre  is  regarded 
as  the  principal  author.  Fu'st  printed,  the  N.  T.,  Mons  (i.  e.,  Amsterdam), 
1067  (afterward  the  O.  T.  also),  and  very  frequently  in  the  Netherlands  ; 
still  the  most  widely  current  French  Catholic  version  ;  often  printed  in 
foreign  countries  (e.  g.,  Lausanne,  1776),  and  in  more  i-ecent  times  at  Paris 
(1816  fP.,  freq.)  :  selon  Vedition  vulgate  (also  with  the  Vulgate)  avec  les 
differences  du  grec ;  with  and  without  notes  on  the  setis  littc'ral  and  the  sens 
spirituel  (§  562).  In  consequence  of  this  last  feature,  as  well  as  of  the 
French  text  itself,  there  arose  long  disputes,  of  which  the  history  of  the 
Church  has  much  to  say  (under  the  reigns  of  Clement  IX.,  Innocent  XL, 
Clement  XL),  and  which  became  a  leading  matter  during  the  last  years 
of  the  reign  of  the  aged  Louis  XIV.,  naturally  rather  as  a  pretext  than  a 
real  cause.  Arnauld,  Defense  de  la  Version  de  Mons,  Col.  1668  ;  Nouvelle  De- 
fense, 1682.  Among  the  bitterest  enemies  of  the  Jansenists,  next  to  the 
Jesuits,  was  R.  Simon  ( Verss.,  p.  396  ff.  ;  Nouvelles  obss.  almost  entire). 
Cf.  in  general  Roseumiiller,  Handb.,  IV.  359  ff. 

During  the  eighteenth  century  some  other  versions  came  into  existence  : 
by  Augustin  Calmet,  in  his  great  exegetical  work,  1707  (§  552)  ;  by  Nic. 
Legross,  anonymously,  Cologne,  1739  ;  afterward  often  with  his  name,  also 
at  Paris  ;  by  Mesenguy,  P.  1764  ;  by  Valart,  1789. 

England  :  Version  by  Corn.  Nary,  1719,  and  especially  by  Alex,  Geddes, 
1786  ff.  ;  see  Eichhorn,  Bibl,  I.  694  ;  II.  459  ;  III.  719. 

Netherlands  :  Jansenist  version  by  And.  v.  d.  Schuuren,  1698  and  freq.  ; 
another  by  Aeg.  de  Wit,  1717  ;  the  date  of  a  Flemish  version  by  P.  Buys, 
which  is  now  printed  by  the  London  Bible  Society  (also  Brussels,  1865  and 
freq.),  is  unknown  to  me. 

Italy  :  Version  by  Ant.  Martini,  Archb.  of  Florence  (f  1808),  approved  by 
the  Roman  See,  Turin,  1776,  now  circulated  by  the  London  Bible  Society, 


LESS  EXTENDED  EUROPEAN  DIALECTS.  509 

N.  T.  1813  and  freq.,  Bible,  1821.  The  Catholic  editions  (Florence,  Milan, 
Turin,  Piato)  have  most  of  them  the  Vulgate  and  exegetical  additions.  The 
English  Propaganda  also  circulates  the  version  of  Diodati  (e.  g.,  Rome, 
1849).  —  Translation  from  Lemaitre  de  Sacy,  Naples,  1766. 

Spain  :  Version  by  Ph.  Scio  de  San  Miguel,  Madrid,  1794,  with  Vulgate 
and  Commentary,  19  vols.,  also  (the  new  text)  by  the  London  Bible  Society, 
1828;  N.  T.  by  Pel.  de  Torres  Aniat,  Bishop  of  Astorga,  likewise,  1837. 

Portugal :  Version  by  Ant.  Pereira  de  Figueiredo,  Lisbon,  1784  ff.,  with 
Commentary.     (The  text  circulated  by  the  London  Bible  Society.) 

Bohemia  :  Prague,  1677. 

489.  We  have  had  in  mind  in  the  foregoing  chiefly  the 
greater  nations  of  Europe,  who  stood  at  the  liead  of  all  intel- 
lectual progress.  But  the  versions  intended  for  them  w^ere  by 
no  means  the  only  ones  brought  into  existence  during  this 
period  by  the  ever-increasing  zeal  for  the  spread  of  the  word 
of  God.  No  corner  of  Christendom  was  forgotten,  no  dialect 
in  which  anything  in  this  direction  still  remained  to  be  done 
for  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel.  Thus  the  Bible  was  carried 
even  to  those  vanished  nationalities  whose  history  is  celebrated 
and  whose  former  freedom  and  glory  now  live  only  in  the  lan- 
guage of  remote  valleys,  or  to  those  others  which  have  never 
been  able  on  their  barren  steppes  to  attain  independent  power 
and  fame.  Not  all  these  peoples  belong  to  the  Protestant 
confessions,  but  it  has  been  mostly  Protestants  who  have 
felt  called  upon  to  give  them  the  Scriptures  in  their  own  lan- 
guage. 

We  have  first  to  mention  under  this  head  a  number  of  Christian  societies, 
formed  in  England  in  the  last  century,  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things, 
of  circulating  the  Bible  among  the  people  as  a  means  of  religious  instruction. 
The  earliest  was  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  1698  ; 
most  of  them  are  still  in  existence.  They  have  printed,  however,  only  for 
the  kingdom,  English  and  Gaelic,  the  latter  in  various  dialects. 

Celtic  languages  :  Versions  into  Welsh,  by  W.  Morgan  and  Rich.  Davies, 
since  1567  ;  into  Irish  (Gaoidheilg),  by  J.  Kern,  about  1600  ;  into  West 
British  (for  the  Isle  of  Man,  Manx),  by  J.  Phillips,  about  1620  ;  into  Scot- 
tish (Gaelic,  Albannaich)  ;  into  the  Armorican-Cymric  (Bas-Breton),  by 
Legonidec  ;  the  last  by  and  for  Catholics.  (Angouleme,  1827,  Brest,  1847, 
1863,  St.  Brieux,  1866,  and  freq.)  Through  the  Bible  Societies  the  editions 
have  become  very  numerous  in  this  century.  See  also  Th.  Llewellyn,  An 
Account  of  British  or  Welsh  Versions  and  editions  of  the  Bible,  Lond.  1768.  It 
is  unnecessary  to  enumerate  later  editions. 

Basque  language  :  By  J.  de  Licarrague,  since  1571,  printed  at  La  Rochelle 
and  Bayonne  (1828).  A  specimen  in  the  Konigsh.  Archiv,  II.  277.  —  Speci- 
men of  a  new  version,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  Greek  and  Basque,  Totil. 
1831.  In  the  Biscayan  dialect  (Escuara),  Luke,  Madr.  1838.  —  These 
works  belong  both  in  origin  and  use  to  the  Catholic  Church,  but  are  now 
circulated  by  the  London  Bible  Society. 

Rhseto-Romance  dialects  in  the  Grisons  :  By  Jac.  Biffrun,  since  1560  ;  J. 
Gritti,  1640  ;  J.  A.  Vulpio  and  others,  1674  ;  Luc.  Gabriel,  1718  ;  frequently 
printed,  especially  in  Chur,  down  to  very  recent  times,  in  two  dialects.  See 
Unsch.Nachr.,  1731, -p. 611;  Weller,^tes,  II.  819  ;  Adelung,  Mithr.,!!.  603. 
That  the  number  of  these  versions  may  yet  be  increased,  as  in  general  in  any 


510  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

region  where  a  universal  national  written  language  cannot  be  formed,  appears 
from  specimens  (the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son)  of  six  different  Rhsetian 
and  eio-ht  Italian  dialects  which  are  spoken  in  Switzerland  alone,  in  Stalder, 
Landessprachen  der  Schweiz,  Aarau,  1819.  (The  same  author  also  has  fifteen 
Swiss-French  dialects;  while  Coquebert  de  Montbret,  Melanges  sur  les  patois 
de  France,  P.  1831,  gives  the  same  parable  in  about  one  hundred  dialects.") 
The  Psalms  were  printed  at  Aix,  in  1702,  in  Provencal.  The  Gospel  of  John 
in  the  present  dialect  of  Upper  Languedoc,  Toulouse,  1820.  A  N.  T.  in  the 
Catalan  dialect.  Loud.  1832  and  freq. 

Scandinavo-Germau  dialects  seem  not  to  have  been  added  to  the  list  until 
very  recently,  §  496. 

Slavic  dialects  (for  the  principal  languages,  see  §§  477,  490)  :  Wendish 
Bible  (Sorabic),  in  the  Upper  Lusatian  dialect,  by  Michael  Frenzel,  1670  ; 
in  the  Lower  Lusatian,  by  Gottlieb  Fabricius,  1709  ;  later,  in  the  former,  by 
several,  1728  (Coleri,  Auserles.  Bibl.,  IV.  40),  by  J.  G.  Kiihu,  1742,  printed 
at  Bautzen.  See  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  III.  471  ;  IV.  283.  —  Croatian,  by 
Georg  Kobila  and  Primus  Truber,  1553,  first  and  more  frequently  printed 
in  Tubingen  (see  Jager,  in  the  Wilrtemb.  Studien,  II.  1  ;  VI.  2).  —  Windish 
(according  to  Ebert  Vandal !),  i.  e.,  in  the  critical  dialect,  by  G.  Dalmatin, 
Witt.  1584  ;  Baumgarten,  I.  c,  IX.  95.  —  Lithuanian,  first  by  J.  Bretcke, 
1590  (not  printed),  afterward  by  S.  B.  Chylinsky,  1660,  in  London  ;  in  the 
country  itself  not  until  1701,  the  N.  T.  ;  in  1735  the  Bible,  by  several,  under 
the  lead  of  J.  J.  Quaudt;  Lork,  I.  454  ;  Adelung,  II.  706;  Tetsch,  Curland. 
Kirchengesch.,  III.  92  ;  and  especially  L.  J.  Rhesa,  Gesch.  der  litih.  Bibel, 
1815.  — Lettish,  by  J.Fischer,  Riga,  N.  T.  1685,  Bible  1689  ;  revised  1739  ; 
also  Riga,  1794  and  freq.  Baumgarten,  I.  c,  IV.  302  ;  IX.  1  ;  Tetsch,  I.  c, 
III.  110.  —  In  the  Dalmatian  dialect  (Ragusa),  by  Kassieh,  the  pericopes, 
Rome,  1641. 

Finnish  languages  :  For  Finland  proper  by  M.  Agricola,  Bishop  of  Abo, 
the  N.  T.,  Stockh.  1548  ;  afterward  separate  portions  of  the  O.  T.  by  E. 
Petri  and  M.  Stodius,  Stockh.  1642,  since  also  at  Abo  (Turns),  and  more  re- 
cently at  St.  Petersburg  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  VI.  286  ;  Henderson,  Biblical 
Researches,  p.  6  if .  —  In  various  Lapland  dialects  by  J.  J.  v.  Tornea,  1648  ; 
by  O.  S.  Graan,  1669.  —  For  Esthonia,  the  N.  T.  in  the  Reval  and  Dorpat 
dialects,  by  Goseken  and  Fischer,  since  1685  at  Reval  (Tallinas);  Lork,  11. 
567;  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  IV.  305  ;  IX.  381.  New  translation  of  the  Bible 
by  Hell  and  Giitzlaff,  1739  ;  see  Tetsch,  Curland.  Kirchengesch.,  III.  86. 

Magyar  (Hungarian)  versions  in  greater  number  (see  P.  Wallasky,  Consp. 
reip.  lit.  in  Hungaria,  Posen,  1785) ;  Lutheran  :  Pauline  Epistles  by  B.  Kom- 
jathi,  Cracow,  1531;  N.  T.  bv  J.  Sylvester,  Szigeth,  1541,  and  freq.  ;  by  G. 
Barany,  Lauban,  1754  ;  by  And.  Torkos,  Vit.  1736.  Reformed  :  N.  T.  by 
Th.  Felegyhazi,  Debr.  1586.  The  Bible  by  C.  Karoli,  Vis.  1589,  2  vols,  fob, 
is  the  most  widely  current  version  ;  revised  by  Alb.  Molnar,  Hanau,  1608, 
and  freq.,  and  still  printed.  Another  by  G.  Csipkes  of  Comorn,  Leyd.  1719. 
Catholic  :  N.  T.  (or  only  the  Gospels  ?)  by  G.  Pesti,  Vienna,  1536  ;  the  Bible 
by  G.  Kaldy,  Vienna,  1626.  See  also  Riederer,  Nachr.  zur  Kirchen-,  Gelehr- 
ten-,  und  Bilchergeschichte,  II.  5. 

There  are  also  to  be  mentioned  a  Wallachian  N.  T.,  Belgrade,  1648,  Bible, 
Bucharest,  1688,  in  Cyrillic  character,  by  the  Metropolitan  Theodosius  (see 
Henderson,  I.  c,  p.  249  ;  Weller,  Altes,  II.  819),  which  has  recently  been 
published  again  in  St.  Petersburg  ;  and  a  translation  into  the  Maltese  lan- 
guage (an  Arabic  patois),  whose  age  and  origin  are  unknown  to  me  ;  Gos- 
pels and  Acts,  Loudon,  1829,  earlier  separate. 

490.  We  mention  finally  those  peoples  on  the  extreme  bor- 
ders of  Europe  whose  languages  retained  possession  of  the 
country,  but  became  transformed  in  course  of  time,  and  which 


MODERN  GREEK  — RUSSIAN..  611 

from  other  causes  also  were  not  drawn  into  the  current  of 
progress  along  with  other  nations.  In  the  case  of  the  Rus- 
sians and  Greeks  the  Bible  was  adapted  to  this  transformation 
at  a  time  when  there  was  as  yet  no  sign  of  the  power  of  the 
one  or  of  the  resurrection  of  the  other.  But  it  should  be  dis- 
tinctly borne  in  mind  that  it  was  by  no  means  the  purpose  of 
the  Orthodox  Greek  Church  to  introduce  into  these  countries 
a  properly  new  translation  of  the  Bible,  at  the  same  time  offi- 
cially recognized  and  popular.  Its  forms  of  worship  did  not 
require  this,  or  i-ather  could  not  suffer  it,  and  other  use  of  the 
Scriptures  was  often  repressed  and  always  very  limited. 

Confessio  Dosithei  {Synod.  Hieros.,  see  above,  §  338  ;  ed.  Kimmel,  I.  455) 
Qu.  1  :  Should  the  Scriptures  be  read  KoiviUs  tcapa  irduToiv  rwv  xp'CTtai'&jj'  ? 
Aus.  :  Ov  •  ■  ■  aW'  inrh  ^6vuiv  rwv  yuerct  rfjs  ■Kpeirovcrris  ^pevvrjs  rois  ^ddecriv  eyKvir- 
tSptoiv  tov  TTvevfjiOLTOs.  .  .  •  Tots  Se  fxri  yeyvixvaa/xevois  Kal  a.Sia<p6pws  v)  iJ.6i'ov  Kara,  rb 
ypdji/xa  TO  ttjs  7pa(p^s  iKKa/x^dvovcnv  rj  Kado\tKT}  iKKKijaia,  Sia  Tr)s  wnpas  t7}v  fi\a^7]v 
iyvooKvla,  ov  deiJ.iT7]u  rrjv  avdyvooatv  evreWirai  lliare  .  .  .  iiriTerpacpdat  fxev  aKOvetv 
.  .  .  avaytvaxTKeiv  5e  evia  ttjs  yp.  fueprj  koI  fidXiCTo,  t^s  TraAatSs  SiadrjKTji  airriy6pev- 
rai. 

Cyril  Lucar  had  formerly  (1G29)  given  the  opposite  answer,  Confess., 
Qu.  1  :  'ils  rh  aKOveiu  ra  rrjs  tepas  yp.  ovSevl  rwv  xp-  aTrriy6pevTai  ourais  oi/Se  rh  av- 
ayivaxTKetu. 

A  modern  Greek  version  of  the  N.  T.  by  Maximos  of  Kallipoli  appeared 
in  1638  (Geneva  or  Leyden  ?),  2  vols.  4°,  with  the  original  text,  like  most  of 
the  subsequent  editions,  very  beautifully  printed.  Another,  by  the  monk 
Seraphim  of  Mitylene,  Lond.  1703,  and  freq.,  also  Halle,  1710.  J.  H.  Cal- 
lenberg  (§§  491,  493)  had  printed  at  Halle,  1746,  single  books  (Luke,  Acts, 
several  Epistles)  as  tracts  for  the  missionaries.  All  the  editions  under  Prot- 
estant influence.  Later  editions,  Chelsea  (London),  1810,  and  freq.  It  was 
not  until  the  present  century  that  the  Patriarch  permitted  the  reading  of  the 
N.  T.  in  the  vernacular,  so  that  editions  could  also  be  printed  in  St.  Peters- 
burg (1817). 

The  N.  T.  of  Colleti  (Ven.  1708,  fol.),  on  the  other  hand,  is  of  Catholic 
origin.  The  Jews  had  prepared  translations  much  earlier  ;  some  of  them 
even  printed  in  Hebrew  characters  and  in  Constantinople  itself. 

Cf.  in  general  Masch,  II.  2,  p.  324  ;  J.  M.  Lange,  De  vers,  grceco-barhara 
N.  T.,  Altd.  1707;  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl.,  III.  474. 

There  are  several  national  Russian  versions.  The  oldest  by  Fr.  Skorina, 
Prague,  1519,  of  which  it  is  said  there  is  but  one  copy  in  existence,  which 
contains  only  the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.  (Ebert).  By  Ernst  Gliick, 
1698  (?  cf.  Tetsch,  Curldnd.  Kirchengesch.,  III.  48).  It  is  unknown  to  me 
whether  the  copies  printed  from  time  to  time  at  Leipzig  (e.  g.,  1838)  contain 
a  later  version.  At  the  command  of  the  Emperor  Alexander  I.  an  official 
version  of  the  N.  T.  was  prepared  by  the  ecclesiastical  academy  at  St.  Peters- 
burg, under  the  direction  of  the  Archimandrite  Philaret,  which  was  printed 
together  with  the  Old  Slavonic  text  and  circulated  by  the  Bible  Society  of 
that  city.  It  appeared  in  parts.  The  preface  to  the  Gospels  (1819)  is  also 
signed  by  the  Metropolitans  Michael  of  Novgorod  and  Seraphim  of  Moscow  ; 
in  1820  there  had  already  been  printed  the  fourth  edition  of  the  Gospels,  the 
second  of  the  Acts,  beside  the  first  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  Romans,  and 
Corinthians  ;  the  rest  followed  later  ;  but  the  work  was  scarcely  completed 
when  the  Society  was  obliged  to  dissolve.  See  in  general  Henderson,  Bibli- 
cal Researches,  p.  103  ff. 


512  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

491.  But  aside  from  Europe,  which  had  been  more  or  less 
moulded  by  Christianity,  even  the  more  remote  portions  of  the 
earth  were  not  neglected.  First  of  all,  the  Christian  peoples 
of  the  Orient,  to  whom  the  art  of  printing  bad  not  yet  found 
its  way,  were  to  be  provided  for  from  the  West.  In  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  task  the  already  existing  versions  were 
not  always  adhered  to.  The  Armenians  founded  literary  in- 
stitutions^ in  Europe  for  themselves ;  the  Georgians  were  di- 
rected to  Russia ;  the  Christians  in  the  Levant,  mostly  of  Ara- 
bic speech,  although  their  ecclesiastical  language,  or  at  least 
ecclesiastical  character,  was  in  some  cases  still  Syriac  or  Cop- 
tic, found  in  Rome  a  not  altogether  disinterested  patroness, 
who  was  the  first  to  prosecute  foreign  missions  systematically 
and  on  a  large  scale,  intent  chiefly,  to  be  sure,  that  as  there 
was  but  one  shepherd,  so  there  should  be  but  one  fold  for  the 
flock  of  Christ. 

Cf.  §§  432,  433.  —  The  Troit^Lgimdii  (Congregatio  cardlnalium  et  prelatorum 
de  Jide  cathoUca  propaganda)  established  by  Gregory  XV.  at  Rome,  in  1622, 
first  and  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  the  Oriental  Christians  to  the 
Latin  Church,  yet  not  without  merit  and  influence  as  respects  foreign  mis- 
sions. A  college  was  connected  with  it  in  1G27  by  Urban  VIII.,  which,  not- 
withstanding all  its  peculiarities  and  the  narrowness  of  its  tendencies,  is  even 
yet  the  grandest  missionary  and  philological  institution  in  existence. 

In  the  Arabic  language,  beside  several  catechisms  and  similar  writings, 
the  Bible  also  was  printed,  in  a  version  made  or  revised  from  the  Vulgate  by 
Sergius  Risins,  1671,  3  vols.  fol.  A  later  one  by  Raph.  Tuki,  1752,  4°,  was 
not  completed.  See  Schelling,  in  the  Repert,  X.  154  ;  Aurivill.,  Diss.,  p. 
308  ;  Michaelis,  Or.  Bibl,  XII.  12 ;  XVI.  99  ;  XVIII.  179 ;  XX.  131  ;  Eich- 
horn,  Bibl.,  V.  65.  — The  N.  T.,  1703,  2  vols.  fol.  Syriac  and  Arabic,  the 
latter  in  Syriac  characters  (Carshuni). 

In  Syria  itself  repeated  editions  in  both  languages  were  published  at  vari- 
ous places  (Aleppo,  Chosroe,  and  others)  during  the  seventeenth  and  eight- 
eenth centuries  (mostly,  however,  only  what  was  liturgically  necessary,  the 
Psalms  and  Gospels). 

Modern  Arabic  versions  have  been  made  or  aided  by  Protestants  also  : 
N.  T.  by  Sal.  Negri,  Lond.  1727,  4°;  J.  H.  Callenberg,  of  Halle  (f  1760), 
a  man  exceedingly  active  in  missionary  matters  (Hartmann's  Tychsen,  I. 
17  ff.),  caused  to  be  printed,  from  1730  to  1750,  among  other  things  (§§  492, 
493),  single  books  of  the  N.  T.  (Matthew,  Acts,  Romans,  Hebrews)  in  Ara- 
bic. Cf.  his  Nadir,  von  einem  Versuch  die  MuJiammed.  zur  Erkenntniss  Christi 
zu  leiten,  H.  1739  ff.  The  English  Bible  Society  circulates  the  version  of 
Risius,  Lond.  1820,  and  freq.  ;  see  Allg.  Literaturzeitung,  1832,  I.  40.  By  a 
Wiirtemberg  missionary,  Schlienz,  at  Malta,  beside  many  educational  and 
religious  works,  some  portions  of  the  Bible  (Proverbs,  Peter)  were  published 
in  1834  ff.  Recently,  an  Arabic  version  for  missionary  purposes  was  begun 
by  S.  Lee,  of  Cambridge  (Eng.),  and  carried  on  by  Jarrett. 

Beside  these,  the  Bible  or  N.  T.  has  been  printed,  1824  fP.,  at  the  Royal 
Press,  Paris,  for  the  English  Bible  Society,  in  both  Syriac  and  Arabic,  the 
latter  in  both  Arabic  and  Syriac  characters,  partly  each  text  by  itself,  partly 
two  by  two,  in  parallel  columns,  under  the  direction  of  Silv.  de  Sacy;  also 
in  Syriac  with  the  peculiar  character  of  the  so-called  Chaldean  Christians  or 
Nestorians  in  Kurdistan. 


MISSIONARY  ORGANIZATIONS.  513 

Arabic  N".  T.  ;  new  translation  by  Nath.  Sabat,  Calc.  1816,  and  freq. 

Coptic-Arabic  N.  T.,  Gospels  and  Psalter,  Lond.  1826  ft'.     Cf.  §  439. 

The  facts  respecting  tlie  state  of  the  Christians  in  the  Orient  wliich  should 
be  borne  in  mind  here  may  be  found  in  the  ancient  and  modern  books  of 
travel,  e.  g.,  Rauwolf,  Troilo,  Dandini,  Mariti,  Volney,  Niebuhr,  Scliolz,  and 
others.  C.  Ritter,  Ein  Blick  auf  Paldsiina  und  seine  christl.  Bevolkerung, 
1852  ;  Kunstmann,  in  the  Quarialschr.,  1845,  I. 

492.  The  broadest  field  for  this  kind  of  Christian  activity 
was  opened  in  those  boundless  regions  into  which  the  message 
of  salvation  had  never  yet  penetrated  effectively.  The  time 
of  mistaken  and  barbarous  attempts  to  convert  by  force  had 
passed  by,  and  Europe  began  to  send  forth  messengers  of  peace 
by  all  the  avenues  which  the  spirit  of  trade,  that  soul  of  a 
more  mature  national  life,  had  opened,  but  had  also  already 
adorned  and  disfigured  with  the  signs  of  its  good  and  evil 
thoughts  and  customs.  Catholics  and  Protestants,  govern- 
ments and  individuals,  religious  societies  and  commercial  cor- 
porations, vied  with  one  another  in  the  great  work  of  missions, 
with  disproportionate  and  slow  results,  it  is  true,  yet  never 
without  some  gain  to  hamanity  in  the  end.  Frequentl}^,  espe- 
cially on  the  Protestant  side,  a  new  version  of  the  Bible  was 
the  means  of  working,  or  the  standard  by  which  Christianity 
announced  its  occupancy  on  a  foreign  shore. 

For  detailed  accounts  of  the  missionary  organizations  themselves  (Propa- 
ganda, Jesuits,  Portuguese  —  Danes,  Halle,  Moravian  Brethren,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  etc.)  we  must  refer  to  the  manuals  of  Church  History. 

The  Hungarian  nobleman  J.  Ungnad  von  Sonneck  was  engaged  upon  a 
Turkish  version  (1565)  ;  but  it  was  never  completed,  or  at  least  never 
printed.  The  Polish  renegade  Alb.  Bobowsky  (Ali  Bey)  actually  translated 
the  Bible  into  Turkish  in  1653  ;  his  work  was  never  printed,  but  was  after- 
ward made  the  basis  of  Kieffer's  (Zenker,  Bibl.  Or.,  p.  209  ;  Le  Long,  1. 135). 
Turkish  N.  T.  by  W.  Seaman,  Oxf.  1666,  at  the  expense  of  a  trading  com- 
pany (Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl.,  V.  471  ;  Ernesti,  Theol.  Bibl.,  V.  383).  Sin- 
gle portions  also  printed  by  Callenberg,  about  1735. 

Greenlandic  version  by  P.  Egede,  1744.  Frequently  printed  at  Copen- 
hagen, now  also  in  London.     Thiess,  Handh.,  II.  511. 

For  India  various  institutions  have  been  at  work  :  — 

(1.)  Danish  missionaries  at  Tranquebar,  B.  Ziegenbalg,  J.  E.  Grundler, 
and  B.  Schulze,  since  1714,  in  the  Tamil  language  ;  Bible,  N.  T.,  and  separate 
portions,  often  printed.  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1726,  p.  511  ;  1734,  p.  274  ;  Maseh, 
II.  197  ;  Eichhorn,  Asiat.  Sprachkunde,  210  ;  Baumgarten,  Nachr.,  IX.  283  &. 
Schulze  left  behind  him  a  Telugu  version  also. 

(2.)  The  Callenberg  Institution  :  The  whole  N.  T.  in  separate  portions, 
also  the  Psalms  since  1749,  in  the  Hindustani  language,  after  the  translation 
of  the  above-mentioned  B.  Schulze.  See  Masch,  II.  202  ;  Callenberg, 
Nachricht  von  Herausgebung  des  N.  T.  in  hindust.  Sprachen  (i.  e.,  into  various 
Indian  dialects),  Halle,  1758. 

(3.)  The  Dutch  East-India  Company  had  the  Gospels  (translated  by  W. 
Konyn)  printed  in  the  Singhalese  language  (Ceylon),  Colombo,  1739  ;  N.  T. 
1772.     Cf.  Eichhorn,  Asiat.  Sprachkunde,  p.  267  fF. 

(4.)  The  Dutch  East-India  Company,  in  the  Malayan  language,  for  the 
Sunda  Islands,  by  D.  Brower,  Just.  Heurn,  Corn.  Ruyl ;  single  books  sine© 
33 


614  HISTORY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

1629,  the  N.  T.  16G8,  at  Amsterdam,  the  Bible  1731,  Amst.,  with  Roman 
characters  ;  1758,  at  Batavia,  with  Arabic.  See  Calleuberg,  Von  Bekehrung 
der  Muhammedaner,  II.  1  ff.;  Baumgarten,  iVacAr.,  IV.  388  ;  Masch,  II.  193; 
Aclelung,  Mithrid.,  I.  104  ;  IV.  43. 

Cliinese  version  of  the  liturgically  necessary  portions  of  the  Bible,  the 
Psalms  and  the  pericopes,  by  Jesuits  (L.  Biiglio  and  Emm.  Dias),  about 
1670.  Matthew  and  Jolm,  in  the  dialect  of  the  island  of  Formosa,  by  the 
Dutchman  Dan.  Gravius,  in  1661.     (Masch,  p.  211  ff.) 

John  Elliott  translated  the  Bible  into  the  language  of  the  aborigines  of 
Virginia,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  1661.  See  Bibl.  Brem.  nov.,  II.  199,  677  ; 
Symbb.  hag.,  II.  541 ;  Adelung,  Mithrid.,  III.  3,  379. 

Creole  N.  T.,  i.  e.,  in  the  jargon  spoken  by  the  negroes  in  the  former 
Dutch  colonies  in  America,  printed  at  Copenhagen,  1781  ;  Barby,  1802  ; 
Bautzen,  1865  and  freq.,  in  various  translations.  Also  the  Psalms,  1784, 
1865.     See  Lork,  Bibelgeschichte,  I.  458  ;  Adelung,  II.  252. 

493.  Israel  was  not  the  last  people  to  whom  the  Christian 
duty  was  fulfilled.  The  New  Testament  was  carried  to  them 
in  the  sacred  dress  of  the  language  of  their  prophets,  as  well 
as  in  the  ragged  coat  of  the  jargon  of  their  peddlers.  But 
while  individuals  were  zealously  striving,  by  the  Scriptures 
and  preaching,  to  bring  the  light  of  the  Gospel  to  bear  upon 
this  unhappy  people,  the  shortsightedness  of  governments  and 
the  brutal  hatred  of  the  people  persisted  in  denying  them  the 
rio-hts  of  men  and  citizens,  and  to  the  narrow-minded  supersti- 
tion of  theologians  is  due  no  small  share  of  the  blame  for  the 
fact  that  all  these  endeavors  have  thus  far  failed  of  the  desired 
results. 

Hebrew  versions  of  the  N.  T.  begin  even  in  the  time  of  the  Reformation 
(see  in  general,  Wolf,  Bibl.  hebr.,  II.  416  ;  IV.  155  ;  Masch,  II.,  ch.  1  ; 
Carpzov,  Crit.  s.,  749  &.).  Gospel  of  Matthew  by  Seb.  Miinster,  Basle,  1537, 
fol.,  and  freq.,  also  with  the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews  ;  at  first  doubtless  only 
as  a  retranslation  into  the  supposed  original  language.  Also  by  J.  Quinqua- 
boreus.  Par.  1-551  ;  by  J.  Mercier,  P.  1555  ;  Mark  and  Luke,  by  Walt. 
Herbst  and  F.  Petri,  Witt.  1574  f.;  the  four  Gospels  by  J.  Clajus,  L.  1610  ; 
and  from  the  Vulgate  by  J.  B.  Jonas,  for  the  Propaganda,  Rome,  1668,  fol.; 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  by  F.  A.  Christian,  L.  1676  and  freq.  The 
whole  N.  T.,  Lond.  1661,  and  by  Elias  Hutter  in  his  Polyglot  editions 
(§  401)  ;  single  books  also  at  the  Callenberg  Institution,  1734  ff. 

In  our  own  day  several  new  Hebrew  versions,  mostly  by  converted  Jews, 
some  of  the  N.  T.  (Lond.  1817,  large  8°;  1840,  16°),  some  of  single  books 
(e.  g.,  Luke,  Berl.  1851  ;  Romans,  by  Delitzsch,  1870),  have  been  prepared 
and  circulated,  some  vfith  Hebrew  commentary. 

Of  Jewish  versions,  or  rather  paraphrases,  i.  e.,  editions  with  a  text  in  a 
modern  language  but  in  Rabbinical  characters,  spelled  also  more  or  less  in 
accordance  with  common  Jewish  pronunciation,  and  with  Hebrew  words 
scattered  through,  there  are  several,  though  only  in  Germany,  or  for  German 
speaking  Jews.  The  O.  T.  has  also  been  published  in  this  manner  by  Jews ; 
see  Wolf,  Bibl.  Hebr.,  I.  1287  ;  Carpzov,  Crit.  s.,  p.  757  ;  and  in  the  Biblia 
Pentapla  (i.  e.,  the  Scriptures  in  a  fivefold  translation  (Luther,  Piscator, 
Ulenberg,  Jewish,  and  Dutch),  and  hence  accused  of  heresy  (Bern,  Ent- 
deckung  des  Greuelwesens,  etc.,  Hamb.  1710),  1710,  3  vols.  4°).  The  N.  T. 
by  J.  Ilerzuge,  Cracow,  1540,  fol. ;  Luke,  John,  Acts,  Romans,  and  Hebrews, 
by  EUas  Schade,  Str,  1592  ;  Luther's  N.  T.  by  Chr.  MoUer,  1700 ;  the 


BIBLE  SOCIETIES.  615 

N.  T.  by  J.  H.  Reiz,  in  the  Bihlia  Pentapla,  by  Miiller  and  Frommann,  partly 
a  free  paraphrase,  for  the  Callenberg  Institution,  1736,  3  vols.  16°.  In 
recent  times,  especially  from  London  (1820  ff.),  frequent  editions  of  the 
N.  T.,  the  Psalms,  the  five  books  of  Moses,  have  gone  out  in  this  way.  Cf. 
also  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl,  III.  95  ;  V.  377. 

It  is  only  recently  that  the  N.  T.  has  been  printed  for  the  Jews,  in 
Hebrew  characters,  also  in  the  Persian  and  Arabic  languages,  and  in  the 
patois  of  the  Polish  and  Spanish  Jews.  —  The  book  of  Genesis  in  the  Tartar 
dialect  of  the  Crimea,  for  the  Caraites  living  there,  is  of  Jewish  origin.  So 
also  the  Modern  Greek-Jewish  Bible  ;  Wolf,  I.  c,  IV.  1219. 

494.  Since  the  beginning  of  tlie  present  century  this  means 
of  propagating  the  Christian  faith,  on  account  of  its  great 
importance,  has  become  to  many  the  immediate  end  in  itself, 
and  has  been  prosecuted  with  an  outlay  of  energy  in  com- 
parison with  which  former  endeavors  are  thrown  into  the 
shade.  Here  begins  the  history  of  the  Bible  Societies,  which 
have  set  themselves  the  task  of  multiplying  the  written  word 
of  God  by  the  aid  of  liberal  contributions  to  such  an  extent  as 
to  make  it  accessible  to  every  one,  even  the  poorest  and  most 
distant.  This  work,  begun  in  England,  has  spread  over  the 
whole  earth,  into  fields  of  labor  already  innumerable,  partly 
independent  of  one  another,  partly  not,  and  exists  in  all 
countries  of  Protestant  and  Greek  confession.  It  has  increased 
the  number  of  editions  of  the  old  translations  indefinitely, 
and  the  number  of  these  is  itself  far  surpassed  by  that  of  those 
newly  prepared. 

Sources,  the  Annual  Reports  of  the  Bible  Societies,  among  which  by  far 
the  most  important  —  although,  like  all  the  others,  overloaded  with  pious  '^ 
bombast  —  are  the  Reports  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  since 
1805.  [Among  American  Societies,  the  American  Bible  Society  is  the  most 
important :  see  its  Annual  Reports  ;  also  those  of  the  Am.  Bible  Union 
(Baptist).] 

A.  H.  Niemeyer,  Art.  Bibelgesellschaften,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  EncyH., 
I.  10  [Art.  Bible  Societies,  in  Encycl.  Brittanica,  9th  ed.]  ;  C.  SchoU,  in  Her- 
zog's  Encykl.,  II.  ;  Bernstein,  in  Stiiudlin's  Archiv,  II.  1  ;  (J.  S.  Vater)  De 
studio  quo  nostra  cetate  id  actum  est  ut  remotissimis  populis  verhum  dei  rr}  ISlif 
StaXeKTCfj  pateat,  Reg.  1816  ;  J.  Owen,  History  of  the  Origin  and  First  Ten 
Years  of  the  Br.  and  For.  Bible  Soc,  Lond.  1816,  2  vols.,  afterward  a  3d  vol., 
1820;  H.  Marsh,  History  of  the  Translations,  etc.,  Lond.  1812;  Thomson  and 
Orme,  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Translation  and  Circtdation  of  the  Scriptures, 
Perth,  1815  ;  W.  P.  Strickland,  History  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  N.  Y. 
1849  ;  (J.  G.  Schoner)  Nachr.  von  der  russischen  Bibelgesellsch.,  Niirnb.  1818  ; 
Magazin  fur  Missions-  und  Bibelgesellsch.,  Basle,  1816  ft".;  G.  de  Felice,  Essai 
sur  I'esprit  et  le  but  de  V Institution  Biblique,  P.  1824  ;  Or.  Douen,  Hist,  de  la 
Societe  Biblique  de  Paris,  1868.  —  If  all  these  emphasize  the  religio- practical 
side  of  the  work  in  a  manner  most  pleasing  to  the  reader,  there  meets  him 
in  C.  S.  Dudley's  Analysis  of  the  System  of  the  Bible  Society  (Lond.  1821, 
600  pages  ! )  the  mechanical-bureaucratic  and  truly  English  part  of  the 
execution,  with  a  most  offensive  display  of  forms  and  figures. 

495.  Several  of  these  Bible  Societies,  having  vast  pecuni- 
ary resources  at  their  command,  are  at  work  for  lands  which 


616  HISTOKY  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

are  still  unoccupied  by  the  Gospel.  Through  them  the  bold 
words  of  the  preacher  of  Byzantium  have  almost  come  true, — 
the  nations  by  thousands  read  the  Bible  in  their  own  languages. 
Of  many  a  new  trauslation,  at  least,  not  even  the  name  of  the 
lano"uage  in  which  it  is  composed  was  before  known  in  Europe, 
and  it  is  frequently  the  case  even  yet,  as  of  old,  that  the  arts 
of  reading  and  writing  must  be  brought  to  a  distant  forgotten 
or  neglected  tribe  before  they  can  use  the  Bible  that  is  pre- 
sented to  them.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  divine  germ  on 
which  depends  the  success  of  the  great  harvest,  though  in  the 
most  imperfect  envelope,  may  everywhere  take  root ;  for  that 
much  unripe  fruit  has  been  poured  forth  into  the  world  from 
the  cornucopia  of  Christian  love  no  one  will  deny  but  he  who 
in  his  joy  at  the  end  overlooks  the  defectiveness  of  the  means, 
or  is  even  inclined  to  measure  the  kingdom  of  God  by  human 
standards. 

It  is  difficult  to  make  the  enumeration  of  the  versions  under  this  head 
complete,  not  to  speak  of  the  editions,  for  the  reason  that  every  year  brings 
several  new  ones  into  existence,  and  by  no  means  all  the  regions  of  the  earth 
have  yet  been  provided  for  ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  keejj  abreast  of  the  times 
everywhere  by  means  of  the  book-trade  or  even  the  journals. 

The  most  noted  centres  are  St.  Petersburg  for  Northern  and  Central  Asia, 
the  Caucasus  and  Russia  ;  New  York  and  Philadelphia  for  America  and 
Oceanica ;  Amsterdam  for  the  Sunda  Islands  ;  Calcutta,  Madras,  Bombay, 
for  India  and  the  neighboring  countries,  among  Avhich  should  also  be  men- 
tioned the  very  active  missionary  institution  at  Serampore  ;  but  above  all, 
London,  which  has  supported  all  the  others  with  money,  and  whose  field  is 
the  whole  earth.  We  necessarily  confine  ourselves  to  a  brief  summary. 
[This  summary  may  be  filled  out  and  brought  down  to  the  present  time  by 
means  of  the  late  reports  and  catalogues  of  the  Bible  Societies.] 

Turkish  language  :  A  series  of  new  versions  ;  the  Bible  by  J.  D.  Kieffer, 
P.  1819  ff. ;  the  N.  T.  by  E.  Henderson,  Lond.  1825  ;  edition  with  Armenian 
characters,  and  with  Greek,  St.  Petersb.  1819.  A  Turkish  N.  T.  was  also 
printed  at  Dresden,  1813. 

Modern  Armenian  N.  T.  by  J.  Zohrab,  P.  1825  (also  in  parallel  columns 
with  the  Ancient),  and  in  the  dialect  of  Ararat.  — Armenian  edition  of  the 
St.  Petersburg  Bible  Society.  —  Edition  by  E.  Biggs,  Smyrna,  1853. 

Persian  versions  of  the  N.  T.  (also  some  portions  of  the  Old)  by  H.  Cole- 
brooke,  Calc.  1805  ;  H.  Martyn,  Calc,  Lond.,  and  St.  Petersb.,  since  1815 
freq.  (see  Allq.  Lit.  Zeit.,  1825,  III.  353  ;  Life  of  Henrij  Martyn);  also 
Astrachan,  1818.  The  O.  T.  by  Robinson,  Lond.,  3  vols.  ;  the  Bible,  by  W. 
Glen,  Lond.  185G. 

The  N.  T.  and  the  Pentateuch  in  the  language  of  the  Afghans  (Pushtu), 
Serampore,  1818  ;  Bible,  Hertf.  18G3.  The  Gospels  in  the  language  of  the 
Beluchis. 

Most  numerous  of  all  are  the  works  of  missionaries  in  and  for  India,  and 
it  is  to  be  hoped  they  are  of  more  value  as  translations  than  as  specimens  of 
the  arts  of  printing  and  paper-making  in  that  region.  (^Memoirs  of  the 
Translations  of  the  S.  S.  into  the  Languages  of  India,  Lond.  1820  ;  Specimens 
of  Editions  of  the  S.  S.  printed  at  Serampore,  1818  ;  Brief  Vieio  of  Baptist 
Missions  and  Translations,  Lond.  1815.)  They  begin  almost  with  the  century, 
but  have  been  vastly  increased,  especially  since  1818.     Printed  mostly  at 


ASIATIC  —  AFRICAN  —  POLYNE  SIAN.  517 

Serampore  ;  also  at  Calcutta,  Madras,  Bombay,  Frederiksnagor,  Colombo, 
etc.,  as  well  as  at  Loiidou.  Few  complete  Bibles  as  yet  ;  mostly  the  N.  T. 
and  portions  of  the  O.  T. ;  in  some  cases  only  single  books  of  the  N.  T. 

Beside  the  Sanslcrit,  the  ancient  sacred  language,  and  the  widely  current 
Mohammedan  language  of  India,  the  Hindustani  (Urdu),  in  several  transla- 
tions, among  which  one  by  Henry  Martyn,  there  are  now  editions  in  the  fol- 
lowing languages : — 

Northern  India :  In  Bengali  (in  several  translations,  also  in  Roman 
letters),  in  the  Maghada  dialect  of  the  province  of  Bahar,  in  the  Uriya 
of  the  province  of  Orissa,  in  the  proper  Hindu  language  (Hindui,  or  Hmdi) 
in  two  characters,  and  in  its  dialects  Baghelkundi,  Kanoj,  Braj,  Koshala. 

Central  India  and  the  region  of  the  Indus  :  In  the  dialects  of  Udeipur, 
Marwar,  Jeipur,  Baikanir,  Battanir,  Malwa  (Ujein),  Harrot,  Smdh,  Multan, 
Punjab  (Sikhs),  Kashmir,  Jombu. 

Himalaya  districts  :  Nipal,  Palpa,  Kumaon,  Garwhal. 

Southern  India  (Madras)  :  In  the  Telinga  or  Telugu,  Canarese,  Malay- 
alim,  and  Tulu  languages,  and  some  other  Dravidian  dialects,  all  in  Malabar 
and  Mysore.  Here  also  belongs  the  Tamil  version  which  was  revised  by 
Fabricius  and  Rheuius  (Madras,  1827  and  freq.,  4  vols.). 

Western  India  (Bombay)  :  In  the  dialects  of  Gujerat,  Cutch,  Konkan, 
and  in  the  Mahrathi  language. 

Ceylon  :  Singhalese  (Colombo,  1819,  3  vols.  4°),  Indo-Portuguese,  for  the 
descendants  of  colonists,  and  Pali,  the  sacred  language  of  the  Buddhists. 

Farther  India  :  In  the  languages  of  Assam,  Burmah,  Siam,  Manipur,  and 
Khassu. 

For  the  Sunda  countries,  in  the  Malayan  language,  beside  older  revised 
versions  (by  Wilmet,  Bible,  Harlem,  1824,  with  Arabic  letters,  for  tlie  Malay 
peninsula,  and  N.  T.,  Lond.  1818,  with  Roman  letters,  for  the  Moluccas),  new 
ones  exist  in  the  dialect  of  Batavia,  in  the  Javanese,  N.  T.,  Hague,  fol.  (see 
Allg.  Lit.  Zeit.,  1847,  I.  790),  in  the  Dyak  language  of  Borneo,  and  in  the 
language  of  the  island  of  Macassar,  Amst.  1852  ff. 

Chinese  translations  by  Morrison  and  Milne,  Mai.  1813  ff.,  in  21  parts  ;  by 
Marshman,  Seramp.  1815  ff.,  gotten  up  in  the  style  of  the  country.  Other 
works  have  been  begun,  also  by  Giitzlaff.  See  Nouv.  Journ.  Asiat.,  I.  94. 
The  Gospels,  in  Roman  letters,  in  the  dialect  of  Shanghai,  Amoy,  Ningpo, 
1853.  A  Japanese  version  has  been  begun  (Luke  printed  from  wood  at 
Hongkong  in  1856)  ;  likewise  one  for  the  Lu-chu  Islands. 

For  Central  Asia,  or  Tatary  in  the  broadest  sense  :  Translations  in  Man- 
chu  (O.  T.  and  Matthew,  9  vols.  4°)  ;  N.  T.  in  the  Mongol  language,  both 
Eastern,  or  Buriat  dialect  and  Western  or  Kalmuck,  St.  Petersb.  1815  ff., 
by  J.  J.  V.  Schmidt  ;  O.  T.  in  Selenginsk,  1830,  by  R.  Yuille  ;  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Orenburg,  Karass,  and  Nogai  Tatars,  and  in  that  of  the  Bu- 
charei,  Astrachan,  1818  ff.  ;  a  translation  for  the  Caucasian  Tatars.  See 
also  the  Zeitschr.  der  dcutsch.  morgenl.  Gesellschaft,  1850,  p.  143.     Tibetan. 

Africa  :  Account  of  a  first  attempt  in  the  Berber  language  of  North 
Africa  (1833)  given  in  Lassen's  Zeitschr.,  VI.  245.  The  countries  on  the 
Upper  Nile  (Journ.  Asiat.,  I.  61  ;  Fundgruhen  der  Or.,  III.  268)  have  been 
provided  for  by  a  new  Amharic  version  of  the  Bible,  prepared  by  a  native, 
Pell  Piatt  (Lond.  1824  ff.,  in  parts).  Single  portions  only  are  thus  far 
printed  in  the  languages  of  the  Bnllom,  Mandingo,  Grebo,  Accra,  Atye,  and 
Yoruba  Negroes  of  Western  Africa,  by  A.  W.  Hanson,  J.  C.  Taylor,  and 
others  ;  in  the  Haussa  language  of  Central  Africa,  by  J.  F.  Schon  ;  also  in 
the  Suahili,  Kikamba,  Galla,  and  Kinika  languages  in  the  East,  and  a  com- 
plete Madagascar  Bible  (Lond.  1855).  Here  and  there,  also,  German 
missionaries  are  at  work,  and  some  of  the  editions  come  from  Basle  and 
Tubingen.  British  missionaries  (Robt.  Moffat  and  others)  in  the  Cape 
countries  have  begun  translations  which  are  already  far  advanced  and  some 


518  HISTORY   OF   THE   VERSIONS. 

of  them  completed,  in  the  Sechuana,  Sesuto,  Zuhi,  and  Namaqua  lan- 
guages, which  have  been  printed  since  1837  in  Grahanistown  and  Capetown. 
(Namaqua  N.  T.  also  Berlin,  18GG.)  There  is  now  also  a  complete  Bible  in 
the  Kaffir  language,  Umkangizo,  1857  f . 

North  ^Vmerica  :  Eskimo  Bible  for  Labrador,  begun  since  1813  (London) ; 
N.  T.  1840,  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  1830  ft'.  For  the  Mohawk,  Chippewa, 
Delaware,  Seneca,  Cherokee,  Sioux,  Cree,  Chickasaw,  and  Choctaw  In- 
dians there  has  been  printed,  in  some  cases  the  N.  T.,  in  others  (for  the 
beginning  of  their  Christian  instruction)  the  Gospel  of  John.  See  also  Allg. 
Lit.  ZelL,  1817,  No.  209.  More  recently  the  O.  T.  also  has  been  taken  up, 
e.  g.,  Joshua  for  the  Choctaws,  N.  Y.  1852  ;  Isaiah  for  the  Mohawks,  1839. 

South  America  and  the  Antilles  :  Several  translations,  some  of  them  but 
just  begun,  in  the  negro  dialects  of  the  English  and  Dutch  colonies, 
especially  of  Guiana,  Cura9ao,  etc.  For  the  aborigines  there  is  as  yet,  so  far 
as  I  know,  nothing  in  existence  but  a  Luke  in  Mexican  (Lond.  1833)  and  in 
the  Aymara  language  of  Bolivia  (Kapf,  in  the  Wiirtemh.  Studien,  IX.  2), 
Yet  there  appear  in  catalogues  names  of  languages  which  are  unknown  to 
me,  and  wliich  possibly  belong  here.  —  Mayan  (Yucatan). 

Oceanica  and  Polynesia  :  Completed,  or  at  least  far  advanced  translations 
in  the  languages  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  (Hawaii,  Gospels,  1828),  Tahiti 
(N.  T.,  Paihia,  1840  ;  Bible,  by  Nott,  Davies,  and  others,  Lond.  1847),  the 
Rarotougas  (N.  T.,  Lond.  1841  ;  Bible,  1851  f.),  the  Marquesas,  the  Tongas 
(N.  T.,  1852,  Bible,  18G2),  New  Zealand  (Maori  N.  T.,  Ranana,  i.  e.,  London, 
1844  ;  O.  T.,  1845  fP.),  the  Samoan  or  Navigator's  Islands,  the  Fijis  (N.  T., 
1853,  Bible,  1858),  and  many  others.  On  the  continent  of  Australia  for  the 
aborigines  (Narrinyeri). 

What  all  these  for  the  most  part  very  quickly  made  translations  have 
accomplished  with  respect  to  linguistic  correctness  and  in  aid  of  a  compre- 
hension of  tlie  Scriptures  by  the  natives,  or  what,  considering  the  relation  of 
apostolic  doctrine  and  methods  to  the  raw  linguistic  material  of  uncivilized 
races,  they  could  accomplish,  will  be  for  a  later  century  to  decide.  For 
exaniple,  there  has  already  arisen  dispute  and  division  among  the  translators 
and  societies  at  work  for  China  over  the  bare  possibility  of  correctly  rendering 
the  idea  of  God  {Journal  of  Sacred  Lit.,  VI.  411).  Even  before  there  had 
been  genuinely  classic  but  little  edifying  scenes  between  European  philolo- 
gists (Henderson  and  Kieflfer,  over  the  latter's  Turkish  N.  T.,  1824  f .),  doubt- 
less not  altogether  due  to  professional  jealousy.  Cf.  also  the  judgment  of 
H.  V.  d.  Gabelentz  (Lassen's  Zeitschr.,  II.  237),  upon  the  work  done  in  Russia, 
and  Neumann's  (^Zeitschr.  der  deutsch.  morgenl.  Gesellsch.,  1849,  352)  on  the 
Chinese  ;  as  well  as  what  the  Brahmin  Ram  Mohan  Roy  acknowledges  of 
his  own  work  in  Bengali.  (N.  Journal  Asiat.,  II.  37.)  W.  HofPmann,  Die 
christl.  Literatur  as  Werkzeug  der  Mission,  B.  1855.  It  is  therefore  unnecessary 
to  note  the  (often  unknown)  names  of  the  translators,  whose  well-meant  but 
necessarily  imperfect  work  will  sooner  or  later  be  displaced  by  better.  —  In 
Eastern  India  it  has  already  come  to  the  stage  that  the  missionaries  no 
longer  intend  to  learn  the  language  of  the  country,  but  prefer  to  train 
a  body  of  native  teachers  in  an  English  education,  by  whom  a  fit  translation 
shall  then  be  made.     Graul's  Pceise,  V.  277. 

496.  These  societies  have  been  much  more  important  and 
beneficial  in  Europe  itself,  particularly  in  those  regions  where 
a  Christian  conviction,  already  existing  and  long  since  spread 
among  the  people,  gives  the  natural  key  to  the  otherwise  closed 
book.  Here  it  was  not  only  easier  to  find  a  skilled  hand  for 
the  preparation  of  a  new  version  into  any  of  the  provincial 


BIBLE   SOCIETIES  —  WORK  IN  EUROPE.  519 

dialects ;  it  is  also  a  more  immediate  and  greater  blessing  to 
bring  the  Bible  within  reach  of  even  the  poorest.  And  this 
end  can  be  attained  the  more  certainly  the  smaller  the  field  of 
labor  for  which  the  society  has  been  formed.  Here  and  there, 
it  is  true,  human  prejudices  and  sectarian  interests  have  been 
combined  with  this  labor  of  love.  The  Bible  organizations 
have  not  been  untouched  by  dogmatic  quarrels  and  confessional 
division ;  the  distribution  of  the  Word  of  God  often  borders 
very  closely  on  waste,  and  through  excess  of  zeal  pearls  are 
sometimes  thrown  before  swine  ;  in  English  and  French  hands, 
particularly,  it  has  often  sunk  to  the  level  of  a  mere  means  of 
anti-Komish  propaganda. 

To  enumerate  the  countless  editions  of  older  European  versions  which  have 
proceeded  from  the  Bible  Societies  would  be  beyond  our  power  and  space. 
They  have  been  sufficiently  noticed  in  the  foregouig  sections.  The  number 
of  wholly  new  versions  for  European  peoples  is  not  very  great  ;  several  which 
were  not  really  national,  official  works  may  have  been  worked  over  or  re- 
vised, particularly  within  the  immediate  sphere  of  British  activity.  Yet  we 
pass  no  judgment  upon  this  matter.  The  Russian  Bible  Society  (established 
in  1812)  was  obliged  after  a  few  years  to  fight  against  political  difficulties, 
and  in  1826  was  dissolved,  after  that,  beside  a  national  edition  in  two  lan- 
guages (Ecclesiastical  Slavic  and  Russian),  it  had  published  the  Bible  in 
twenty-seven  languages,  fourteen  of  which  had  never  before  been  used  for 
that  purpose.  A  Protestant  society,  however,  has  taken  its  place,  which 
confines  its  activity  at  present  to  non-Cliristian  peoples,  and  to  the  non- 
Russian  languages,  at  the  same  time  naturally  caring  for  those  of  its  own 
faith.  For  details  see  the  latest  report  of  Frommann  and  Dalton,  1863.  E. 
Henderson,  Biblical  Researches  and  Travels  in  Russia,  1826. 

New  translations  into  dialects  which  had  them  before  :  Armorican  (Bas- 
Breton),  Modern  Greek  (Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  Lond.  1833),  Russian. 

Dialects  which  had  not  before  been  provided  for  :  Scandmavian  :  that  of 
the  Faro  Islands.  Finnish  :  those  of  the  Norwegian  Laplanders,  Karelian, 
Mordvinian,  Tscheremissian,  Sirenian,  Tschuwassian.  Slavic  :  Samogitian, 
Serbian  (by  Wuk  Stephanowicz  Kai'adschicz,  N.  T.,  B.  1857,  and  freq.,  Bible, 
Belgrade,  1868),  Bulgarian  (together  with  the  Old  Slavic,  N.  Y.  1867; 
Psalms,  Constant.  1866).  Romance  :  Catalan,  Piedmontese,  Vaudois.  Al- 
banian (printed  together  with  the  Modern  Greek,  in  Corfu,  1827),  in  several 
dialects  ;  Moldavian  ;  Illyrian,  Budimu,  1831,  6  vols. 

The  editions  of  the  Bible  for  the  blind  should  also  be  mentioned,  espe- 
cially in  the  Wiirtemberg  Blind  Asylum,  now  complete  in  sixty-three  parts. 

497.  Particularly  important  for  our  history  is  the  funda- 
mental principle  common  to  all  these  societies,  to  circulate 
none  but  the  current  Church  version,  where  such  a  one  exists. 
This  principle,  judicious  as  it  is  in  itself  considered,  neverthe- 
less has  the  disadvantage  of  hindei'ing,  if  it  does  not  render 
impossible,  the  improvement  of  those  versions,  which  is  founded 
in  the  spirit  of  Protestantism,  and  is  ever  more  pressingly  de- 
manded by  science.  It  is  no  doubt  always  difficult  to  define 
correctly  and  clearly  the  limits  of  such  an  undertaking,  and 
especially  so  to  choose  the  persons  to  whom  the  Church  shall 


620  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

commit  the  perilous  work ;  but  it  certainly  must  and  will  be 
ventured  upon  finally,  and  perhaps  first  of  all  where  the  need 
is  proportionately  less,  but  where  religious  conviction  is  less 
rigid  in  its  forms.  Attempts  have  already  been  made,  and 
were  it  not  for  the  love  of  peace  they  would  by  this  time  have 
been  to  a  great  extent  successful,  in  spite  of  the  clamor  of  nar- 
row and  petty  criticism. 

In  Germany  I  know  of  no  Bible  Society  which  has  printed  any  other  than 
Luther's  version,  and  indeed  most  of  the  editions,  so  far  as  is  known  to  me, 
are  still  based,  even  in  the  subordinate  matters  of  orthography,  punctuation, 
and  the  headings  of  the  chapters,  upon  the  widely  current  Canstein  editions  ; 
down  to  the  time  of  these,  single  phrases  had  been  quietly  replaced  by  more 
modern  ones.  The  same  is  true  of  the  exceedingly  numerous  private  edi- 
tions prepared  by  booksellers.  Yet  the  principle  of  going  back  strictly  to 
the  last  edition  of  Luther,  1545,  has  already  been  applied  in  many  (but  by 
no  means  in  all)  of  the  editions  circulated  by  Bible  Societies  (Wiirtemberg, 
Bavaria,  Hamburg- Altona),  but  in  view  of  the  undeniable  change  in  the  lan- 
guage, both  in  diction  and  syntax,  can  only  be  carried  out  to  the  disadvan- 
tage of  tlie  reader  and  with  no  gain  to  the  cause.  Cf.  Monkeberg,  in  the 
Berl.  Zeitschr.,  March,  1855. 

The  Strassburg  Bible  Society,  in  1828,  had  a  N.  T.  stereotyjied  with  im- 
provements in  the  margin.  A  similar  edition  of  the  O.  T.  was  abandoned, 
although  several  times  talked  of,  on  aeeoimt  of  decided  opposition  ;  C.  W. 
Krafft,  Darf  Luther's  Bibel  durch  Bibelgexellschaften  revidirt  werden  ?  Str. 
1846  ;  C.  H.  Bogner,  Gesch.  der  Bihelgeselhch.  zu  Strassburg,  186G.  —  The 
Frankfort  Bible  Society  supported  or  favored  the  circulation  of  Meyer's  re- 
vision (§  498),  but  did  not  meet  with  approval. 

Preparations  for  a  revision  of  Luther's  version,  perhaps  to  be  undertaken 
under  ecclesiastical  sanction  (in  which,  however,  ne  quid  nimis  was  to  be  the 
ruling  principle),  in  C.  Monkeberg  and  C.  Frommann,  Vorschldge  zur  Re- 
vision, etc.,  Halle,  1861  f.  [Now  completed,  whole  Bible,  1884.]  But  more 
seriously  in  Switzerland,  by  a  commission  appointed  in  1860  by  the  Church 
Conference,  under  Antistes  S.  Preiswerk,  of  Basle,  which  has  already  pub- 
lished specimens. 

The  Paris  Bible  Society,  before  it  split  from  dogmatic  causes,  printed 
only  the  recensions  of  Martin  and  Osterwald  (now  only  the  latter,  an  alto- 
gether unsatisfactory  version  both  scientifically  and  linguistically),  but  not 
the  more  modern  Genevan  versions,  which  are  in  disrepute  on  the  Orthodox 
side.  Before  its  establishment  a  beautiful  edition  of  Sacy's  N.  T.  had  been 
printed  by  generous  contributions  (1816,  and  freq.),  but  it  has  never  been 
officially  used  in  the  liturgy,  and  since  that  time  this,  like  every  other  Catho- 
lic version,  has  become  an  apple  of  discord  between  Bible  Societies  of  stricter 
and  laxer  practice.  (B.  Pozzy,  La  Bible  et  la  version  de  L.  Sacy,  1858.)  In 
the  year  1834,  with  English  money  {Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowl- 
edge), preparations  were  begun  in  Paris  for  a  new  version  ;  after  much  labor 
(most  of  it,  however,  Penelopine,  because  the  changes  must  at  the  same  time 
be  conservative)  there  was  ready  for  the  press  in  1842  a  N.  T.  in  large  4°, 
also  in  smaller  form,  afterward  also  the  O.  T.  ;  but  it  has  not  really  been  put 
into  circulation  even  yet.  A  fuller  but  very  unsatisfactory  account  of  this 
miscarriage  is  given  in  the  Esperance  of  November  4,  1859.  A  Lausanne 
society  published  in  1839  (3d  improved  edition,  1859)  a  N.  T.  of  its  own  ; 
French  clergymen  of  Switzerland  are  at  work  on  the  O.  T.,  of  wliich  the 
Psalms  appeared  in  1854,  since  then  the  Pentateuch  also.  This  work  jirides 
itself  upon  the  greatest  possible  literalness.  L.  Burnier,  Ln  ver-tion  de  Lau- 
sanne, 1866,  together  ^vith  other  writings.  —  One  of  the  three  Paris  Bible 
'Societies  now  prints  later  versions  also. 


ATTEMPTS  AT  REVISION  OF  CURRENT  VERSIONS.   521 

The  Bible  Society  of  Copenhagen  made  no  objection  to  endorsing  a  re- 
vision made  by  the  first  theologian  of  the  country.  Miinter,  Dc  nova  vers, 
vemaculce  recognitione,  1817.  On  a  new  translation  see  A.  Michelsen,  m  the 
Zeitschr.  fur  luth.  TheoL,  1869,  I.  On  a  Swedish  version,  G.  L.  Plitt,  ibidem, 
1865,  IV. 

There  was  published  in  America,  by  a  New  York  Society  (American  Bible 
Union),  in  1854,  as  a  specimen  of  a  revised  version  of  the  N.  T.,  a  quarto 
volume  (2  Peter  to  the  Apocalypse)  with  text  and  pauifully  minute  vindi- 
cation of  details  [N.  T.  published,  N.  Y.,  1860  ;  whole  Bible,  1866].  In 
England  an  Anglo-Biblical  Institute  has  been  formed  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
vising the  translation  of  the  Bible  (Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  V.  248). 
B,ecently,  on  both  sides  of  the  ocean  in  common,  mostly  under  episcopal  co- 
operation, and  with  great  apparatus  of  committees  and  regulations,  a  revis- 
ion of  the  official  version  is  being  prepared,  respecting  which  Ph.  SchafE,  of 
New  York,  has  published  several  notices.  The  ruling  principle  is  still  :  to 
introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible.  [The  New  Testament  published  May 
17,  1881,  by  the  University  Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  England, 
mider  the  title  :  The  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
translated  out  of  the  Greek:  being  the  Version  set  forth  A.  D.  1611  compared 
with  the  most  ancient  authorities  and  revised  A.  D.  1881.  The  text  is  divided 
into  paragraphs,  the  chapter  and  verse  numbers  being  placed  in  the  margin. 
With  an  appendix  containing  the  readings  preferred  by  the  American  Com- 
mittee, recorded  at  their  desire.  Numerous  reprints  in  America,  some  ex- 
act, others  incorporating  the  American  Appendix  into  the  text.  The  Old 
Testament  is  expected  to  appear  during  the  current  year  (1884).  The  lit- 
erature relating  to  the  Revision  is  very  great ;  see  especially  A.  Roberts, 
Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Neio  Testament,  Loud.  1881  ;  with  a 
supplement  by  Ph.  Schaff,  Chairman  of  the  Am.  Committee  of  Revision, 
N.  Y.  1881  ;  The  New  Revision  and  its  Study,  by  Drs.  Abbot,  Riddle,  Dwight, 
Thayer,  Kendrick,  and  Crosby,  members  of  the  Am.  Revision  Committee, 
Phila.  1881  (reprinted  from  The  Sunday-School  Times) ;  B.  H.  Kennedy, 
Ely  Lectures  on  the  Revised  Version  of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1882  ;  W.  A.  Os- 
borne, The  Revised  Version  of  the  Neio  Testament,  A  Critical  Commeiitary 
with  Notes  upon  the  Text,  Lond.  1882  ;  (Dean  Burgon)  Three  articles  on  New 
Testament  Revision  in  the  London  Quarterly  Review,  Oct.  1881,  Jan.  and  Feb. 
1882  ;  a  most  severe  and  unsparing  attack  upon  the  Revision  ;  in  reply: 
The  Revisers  and  tfie  Greek  Text  of  the  New  Testament.  By  Two  Members  of 
the  New  Testament  Company  (Bishop  Ellicott  and  Ai-chdeacon  Palmer),  Lond. 
1882  ;  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  and  English  Version,  N.  Y. 
1883,  2d  ed.  rev.  and  enlarged,  1884,  p.  371  ff.,  where  a  good  bibliography 
may  be  found.  Documentary  History  of  the  American  Committee  on  Revision, 
Prepared  by  Order  of  the  American  Committee.  To  be  published  after  the 
completion  of  the  work  (N.  Y.  1884).  A  valuable  contribution  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  English  Committee  in  the  London  Times,  May  20,  1881.] 

498.  Meanwhile  individuals  are  exercising  their  powers  on 
the  work.  In  most  Protestant  countries  several  attempts  of 
the  kind  have  been  made,  partly  by  those  whose  aim  has  been 
simply  to  improve  the  existing  version,  partly  by  those  who 
have  worked  independently.  There  has  also  been  much  scien- 
tific discussion  as  to  the  conditions  and  principles  of  such  an 
undertaking.  True,  even  the  best  version  cannot  and  ought 
not  to  be  applied  to  public  use  so  long  as  it  is  commended  only 
by  its  inner  value  and  not  by  the  order  and  authority  of  the 
Church ;  but  let  this  value  be  recognized  by  unprejudiced  in- 


522  HISTORY   OF   THE   VERSIONS. 

telligence,  competent  science,  and  sound  taste,  and  theologians 
would  gradually  accustom  themselves  to  the  use  of  the  new 
form  in  their  own  instruction,  and  this  would  be  the  beginning 
of  an  ecclesiastical  change.  But  there  is  little  prospect  of  such 
a  change  during  our  century,  as  little  in  Germany  as  in  Eng- 
land. 

Germany  :  Einige  Gedanken  iiber  die  Versuche  neuer  Ueberss.  hes.  des  N.  T., 
in  Cramer's  Beitrdge,  I.  ;  C.  F.  Aichinger,  Vorschldge  die  deutscke  Bihel  be- 
treffend,  1774  ;  J.  M.  Faber,  De  emendanda  versione  Lutheri,  Erf.  1778  ; 
Schultliess,  Die  Unverdnderlichkeit  der  luther.  Bibel,  iu  his  Forschungen,  II. 
232  ;  J.  Pfeiffer,  Vorschlag  Luther's  N.  T.  moglichst  zu  herichtigen,  B.  1817; 
R.  Stier,  Altes  und  neues  in  deutscher  Bibel,  Basle,  1828,  and  several  later 
writings  of  the  same  author  ;  Grashof,  Die  luther.  Bibeluhers.  und  die  Bediirf- 
nisse  unserer  Zeit,  1835  ;  Ruck-  und  Vorblick  auf  Luther's  Bibel,  Straub. 
1835  ;  Heim,  Ueber  Einfuhrung  einer  berichtigten  deutschen  Bibel'dbers.,  in  the 
Wurtemb.  Studien,  X.  2  ;  C.  Strobel,  Ueber  die  Revision  der  luth.  Bibel  (Zeit- 
schr.  fur  luth.  Theol.,  18G2,  III.);  Delitzsch,  ibidem,  18G3,  I.  ;  Gutachten  d, 
theol.  Facul.  zu  Rostock,  Schwerin,  18G3  ;  Dorner,  Ueber  einheitliche  Textge- 
staltung  und  Verbesserung  der  luth.  Uebers.,  1868. 

Eevised  Lutheran  texts  :  by  J.  F.  v.  Meyer,  Senator  of  the  city  of  Frank- 
fort, 1819,  5th  ed.  1851,  3  vols.  8°,  highly  commended  and  little  unproved  ; 
E.  C.  Kraus,  Tiib.  1830.     More  thorough,  R.  Stier,  2d  ed.,  Bielef.  1859. 

New  versions  of  the  present  century  :  C.  F.  Preiss,  1811  ;  C.  J.  Sch'afer, 
1816  ;  (Richter  and  Pleissner)  Zwickau,  1830  ;  E.  G.  A.  Bbckel,  1832  ;  J. 
K.  W.  Alt,  1837  ;  C.  v.  d.  Heydt,  1852  ;  all  the  N.  T.  only.  —The  whole 
Bible,  by  Augusti  and  De  Wette,  Heidelb.  1809-1814,  6  vols.  ;  but  espe- 
cially in  a  later  revision  by  De  Wette  alone,  1831,  and  freq.  — Protestanten 
Bibel,  N.  T.,  published  by  P.  W.  Schmidt  and  F.  von  Holtzendorff,  with  the 
cooperation  of  several,  L.  1872. 

In  France  a  new  Protestant  version  is  scarcely  possible  from  the  lack  of 
freedom  of  speech,  to  say  nothing  of  that  of  thought,  although  there  are  cer- 
tain now  living  who  lack  not  so  much  the  desire  and  the  need  as  the  ability. 
The  translators,  starting  with  the  idea  that  they  must  work  directly  for  the 
great  public  (because  there  are  unfortunately  but  few  "  studying  "  theolo- 
gians), prescribe  for  themselves  at  the  outset  the  law  that  no  changes  are  to 
be  made  v/here  dogma  would  be  affected,  but  that  elsewhere  a  literalness  is 
to  be  observed  which  tortures  the  language  unconscionably.  Cf .  Ed.  Reuss, 
in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  X.  172  ;  Nouv.  Revue,  I.  1.  —  N.  T.  by  E.  Arnaud, 
1858,  1865  ;  A.  Rilliet,  Geneva,  1858  (after  Lachmann's  text,  with  critical 
notes) ;  for  the  sect  of  the  Darbyites,  N.  T.,  Vevey,  1859  ;  for  the  Sweden- 
borgians,  N.  T.  by  Le  Boys  des  Gays  and  Harle,  St.  Amand,  1862.  — 
Prophets  and  Psalms  by  Perret-Gentil,  Neuchatel,  1852  ;  the  remaining 
books  of  the  O.  T.  by  the  same,  1861.  The  poetical  books  of  the  O.  T.  by 
L.  Vivien,  and  many  single  attempts  in  the  Strassb.  Revue.  There  has  just 
appeared  (1872),  under  the  auspices  of  the  Venerable  Compagnie,  of  Geneva, 
a  new  version  of  the  N.  T.  by  H.  Olti-amare,  and  they  have  in  press  the 
O.  T.  by  L.  Segond  (by  the  latter  a  selection  of  separate  portions,  1864  ; 
Isaiah,  1866).  A  society  of  Paris  clergymen  has  begun  a  version  appearing 
in  parts,  1864  ff. 

Recently  a  violent  controversy  has  begun  in  journals,  essays,  and  con- 
ferences over  the  question  of  the  revision  of  the  French  Bible  {La  version 
d'  Osterwald  et  les  Soc.  bibliques,  1862  ;  La  question  bihUque  en  1862,  etc.), 
which  thus  far  only  shows  more  clearly  the  impossibility  of  such  a  thing 
upon  a  common  ecclesiastical  basis.  See  also  Em.  Cadiot,  Essai  sur  les  con- 
ditions d'  une  traduction  populaire  de  la  bible  en  Frang.,  Str.  1868.     The  book 


MODERN  CATHOLIC  VERSIONS.  623 

of  Petavel,  mentioned  in  §  465,  is  rather  critical  than  historical ;  likewise  O. 
Douen,  §  486. 

In  England,  since  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  many  voices  have  been 
raised  in  favor  of  a  revision  of  the  church  version.  See  Thiess,  Handb.  der 
theolog.  Literatur,  I.  223  ;  Ersch,  Repertorium,  1785-1800,  I.  184  f .,  II.  146  f ., 
III.  123  ;  Eichhorn,  Bibl.,  VIII.  980.  But  such  a  revision  is  even  more 
needful  for  other  than  church  purposes,  which  will  just  as  little  be  able  to 
bring  it  about.  In  recent  times  the  question  has  been  taken  up  again. 
J.  Beard,  A  Revised  English  Bible  the  Want  of  the  Church  and  the  Demand  of 
the  Age,  Lond.  1857  ;  (S.  Davidson)  in  the  Theological  Review,  1866,  p.  188. 
Single  books  have  often  been  translated  by  exegetes  without  reference  to 
church  use.  [Scholefield,  Hints  for  an  Improved  Translation  of  the  N.  T.,  1832  ; 
Trench,  The  Authorized  Version  of  the  N.  T.  in  Connection  with  some  Recent 
Proposals  for  its  Revision,  rev.  ed.,  Lond.  1859  ;  Ellicott,  Considerations  on 
the  Revision  of  the  English  Version  of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1870  ;  Lightfoot,  On 
a  Fresh  Revision  of  the  N.  T.,  2d  ed.,  Lond.  1871  ;  all  three  essays,  in  an 
authorized  American  edition,  in  one  volvime,  with  introduction  by  Ph.  Schaff, 
N.  Y.,  1873  ;  Selwyn,  Notes  on  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version,  Lond. 
1856  ;  F.  Ili£f,  Plea  for  the  Revisal  of  the  Bible  Translation  of  1611, 
Lond.  1857  ;  Plea  for  a  New  Eng.  Version  of  the  Scriptures,  by  a  Licentiate 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Lond.  1864  ;  ALford,  How  to  Study  the  N.  T., 
Lond.  1865-68,  3  vols.,  contains  numerous  corrections  of  the  Authorized 
Version  ;  A.  Dewes,  Plea  for  translating  the  Scriptures,  Lond.  1866  ;  articles 
in  the  New  Englander,  Feb.  and  May,  1859  ;  Quarterly  Review,  Jan.  1863  : 
Contemp.  Rev.,  June,  1866,  Feb.  1870  ;  Briiish  Quar.  Rev.,  Jan.  1870.  Article 
Version,  Authorized,  by  E.  H.  Plumptre,  in  Smith's  Diet.,  IV.  pp.  34,  38  &.,  to 
which  is  appended  a  full  bibliography  by  Prof.  Abbot ;  Schaff,  Companion  to 
the  Gk.  Test.,  p.  371  ff.] 

499.  With  all  its  numerous  associations  for  the  purpose  of 
supplying  the  spiritual  and  physical  needs  of  the  people,  the 
Catholic  Church  has  no  Bible  Societies.  Indeed  its  prominent 
men  have  often  expressed  themselves  with  bitter  severity 
respecting  the  Protestant  societies,  and  in  such  terms  that 
their  opponents  have  been  able  to  find  in  their  words  fully  as 
much  enmity  against  the  Bible  itself  as  against  the  scarcely 
concealed  views  of  those  who  were  engaged  in  circulating  it. 
And  yet  it  would  be  an  error  to  suppose  that  this  Church  has 
done  nothing  at  all  for  this  purpose.  Many  Catholic  clergy- 
men of  high  rank  have,  even  in  our  own  century,  prepared 
translations  of  their  own  ;  oftener  still  have  institutions  been 
founded  to  put  copies  into  the  hands  of  the  people  in  larger 
numbers.  This  has  been  the  case  particularly  in  regions  where 
the  two  Churches  are  obliged  to  live  together  as  neighbors, 
and,  we  would  fain  believe,  not  simply  from  necessity.  Never- 
theless the  old  charge  remains  true,  that  the  greater  the 
distance  from  the  birthplace  of  the  Reformation  the  less  is  the 
Bible  used  as  a  means  of  religious  training  among  Catholic 
people. 

Pius  VII.  declares  to  the  Archbishop  of  Gnesen,  June  28,  1816,  and  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Mohilew,  Sept.  4th,  that  the  circulation  of  the  Bible  by  the 
Protestants  is  a  shameful  undertaking,  the  Bible  Societies  a  pest  (See  Hase, 


624  HISTOKY  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

Kirchengesch.,  6th  ed.,  574  ;  Wald,  Decreta  quibus  socc.  bihl.  a  P.  R.  damnantur, 
Reg.  1818  ;  Wachler,  Theolog.  Nadir.,  1817,  p.  237).  Encyclical  letters  of 
the  same  sentiment  by  Leo  XII.,  May  5,  1824  ;  Pius  VlII.,  May  24, 
1829  ;  Gregory  XVI.,  May  8,  1844  (Inter  prcecipuas  machinationes,  see  Tiib. 
Quartalschr.,  1844,  p.  696)  ;  Pius  IX.,  Nov.  9,  1846,  Dec.  8,  1849.  —  The 
forbidduig  of  the  laity  to  read  the  Bible  without  oversight  and  official 
explanation  (ut  biblia  vulgari  sermone  edita  non  aliis  permitterentur  nisi  quibus 
illorum  lectio  ad  fidei  atque  pietatis  augmentum  profutura  judicaretur,  Regg. 
Indie,  III.,  IV.,  1564)  has  for  its  pretext  the  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures  and 
their  manifold  corruption  imprudentia  vel  fraude,  but  is  really  and  con- 
sistently based  upon  the  Catholic  principle  of  the  hierarchy  and  of  tradition, 
and  so  did  not  need  to  be  supported  by  the  taunt  that  the  Bible  men  (socii, 
sectarii  biblici)  give  the  Scriptures  even  to  the  stupid  heathen  rabble  {ab-> 
surdissimum  et  inauditum  !).  After  such  declarations,  more  favorable  views 
on  the  part  of  Catholic  theologians  (L.  v.  Ess,  F.  Obertliiir)  must  of  necessity 
be  rare,  or  would  not  be  permitted  to  be  expressed. 

Most  recent  Catholic  versions  in  Germany  by  C.  and  Leander  van  Ess  ; 
the  N.  T.  1807  and  freq.  ;  afterward  the  Old  also,  at  first  in  parts.  The 
last-named  is  the  pi'incipal  translator,  a  former  Benedictine,  for  a  time  agent 
of  the  British  Bible  Society,  and  suspected  by  the  Roman  Curia  ;  his  N.  T. 
is  still  printed  and  circulated  by  that  Society.  Catholic  polemic  against 
Van  Ess  :  Warnung,  etc.,  Str.  1819  ;  M.  Molkenbuhr,  1817  ;  Kistemaker, 
Ueber  Matth.  xxiv.  (in  the  Preface)  ;  also,  B.  M.  Sclmappinger,  1807  ; 
Widemann,  1809  ;  Gossner,  Mimich,  1815,  and  freq.  ;  J.  H.  Kistemaker, 
1825  ;  J.  M.  A.  Scholz,  1828  fe.  N.  T.  by  a  pastor  of  the  diocese  of  Trier, 
Cobl.  1837.  Several  of  them,  on  account  of  the  commentaries  accompanying 
them,  are  mentioned  in  the  history  of  exegesis.  The  one  now  most  widely 
current  in  Germany  is  by  J.  F.  Allioli,  1836,  and  freq.  The  British  Bible 
Society  also  circulates  the  version  in  Kistemaker's  N.  T.  (more  frequently 
printed  in  Germany),  and  Gossner's. 

In  France,  Sacy's  version  is  still  by  far  the  most  in  favor,  though  probably 
not  so  much  because  of  its  Jansenism  as  because  of  its  style.  A  N.  T.  by  E. 
Genoude,  1821.  By  the  same  author  also  single  books  of  the  O.  T.  with 
commentary,  and  the  whole  with  the  Vulgate,  1821.  The  version  of  the 
Gospels  by  Lamennais,  1846,  beautiful  in  style,  is  intended  to  serve  politico- 
social  purposes  by  its  annotations.  See  Ed.  Reuss,  in  the  Jena  Allg.  Lit. 
Zeit.,  Oct.  1848.  We  pass  over  many  translations  of  smgle  books. — 
While  the  light  of  the  Bible  is  studiously  withdrawn  from  the  people,  the 
ignis  fatuus  which  fell  from  heaven  (§§  258,  266)  is  spread  by  the  press  with 
episcopal  comitenance. 

Most  of  the  editions  of  Italian,  Spanish,  and  Dutch  Bibles  of  Catholic  origin 
which  are  known  to  me,  probably  still  others  also,  are  to  be  credited  to 
Protestant  Bible  Societies  (§§  476,  488),  especially  to  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  but  also  to  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge, 
which  has  recently  had  prepared  new  translations,  or  at  least  revisions,  for 
Catholic  countries  (Spain,  Poland,  Ireland,  France).  A  new  EngUsli  version 
by  Challoner  appeared  in  N.  Y.  in  1854. 

The  circulation  of  the  Bible  in  the  southern  countries  of  Europe,  and  the 
religious  or  mdustrial  means  of  accomplishing  it,  sometimes  form  interesting 
episodes  in  the  history  of  worship  (Borrow,  The  Bible  in  Spain,  1843),  or  even 
in  political  history  (Die  Familie  Madiai  in  Florenz,  1852  ff.). 

A  N.  T.  for  the  then  so-called  New  Catholics,  by  A.  M.  Miiller,  B. 
1845. 

500.  Thus  the  History  of  the  Versions  has  likewise  divided 
itself  into  two  periods,  the  conditions  and  phenomena  of  the 


SUMMARY.  525 

ancient  churcb  here  considered  constituting  in  a  certain  way 
the  preparatory  epoch.  During  the  first  period  the  sacred 
collection  remained  almost  exclusively  a  church  book,  partly 
because  there  were  no  convenient  means  of  circulating  it, 
partly  because  the  people  did  not  possess  the  requisite  pre- 
paratory Christian  training  to  profit  by  self-instruction,  and 
finally,  because  the  language  of  the  Bible  presented  to  them  an 
insuperable  obstacle.  The  second  period  shows  how,  from 
weak  beginnings,  the  Bible  became  more  and  more  a  popular 
book.  The  History  of  the  Versions  became  at  the  same  time 
a  history  of  their  actual  circulation,  especially  through  the  aid 
first  of  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation,  and  afterward  through 
missionary  activity.  The  increasing  influence  which  the  Scrip- 
tures in  this  way  obtained  over  the  Christian  training  of  the 
people  constitutes  the  interest  of  the  History  of  Exegesis. 


BOOK    FIFTH. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  USE  OF  THE  SACRED 
SCRIPTURES   OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

601.  Even  during  the  apostolic  age  the  writings  whose 
history  we  have  thus  far  been  engaged  in  recounting  were 
made  use  of  in  various  ways  for  the  edification  and  instruction 
of  Christians.  They  found  in  them  partly  the  instruction 
itself  which  they  needed,  partly  and  more  commonly  the  con- 
firmation of  the  oral  preaching  by  which  the  faith  had  been 
taught  them.  But  this  use,  an  incidental  and  directly  practical 
one,  was  the  only  one,  and  remained  so  for  a  considerable  time 
in  the  generations  immediately  following  the  Apostles.  In  a 
word,  down  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  no  theological 
and  scientific  use  of  these  books  had  been  made.  Before  this 
time,  therefore,  we  cannot  speak  of  any  exegesis  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Justification  of  the  title.  Tlie  fortunes  of  Exegesis  have  always  been 
closely  coimectecl  with  those  of  Theology. 

Distinction  between  a  History  of  Hermeneutics  and  a  History  of  Exegesis. 
Necessity  and  interest  of  the  combination  of  the  two.  Limitations  in  the 
presentation  of  the  literary  phenomena.  Dilficulty  in  the  grouping  of  indi- 
viduals. 

Preliminary  works.  More  general  :  Sixtus  Senensis,  Biblioth.  sancta 
(§  16),  Bk.  IV.  ;  R.  Simon,  Hist.  crit.  du  V.  T.,  III.  ;  idem,  Hist,  des  princi- 
pcux  commentateurs  du  N.  T.,  1693  ;  S.  Deyling,  De  recta  interpr.  ratione, 
L.  1721  ;  J.  H.  Callenberg,  De  scepticismo  exeg.,  pp.  54-182  ;  P.  H.  Schuler, 
Gesch.  der  populiiren  Schrifterkl.,  Stuttg.  1787,  2  Pts.  ;  S.  F.  N.  Morus, 
Acroases  super  hermeneutica  N.  T.  (1797, 2  vols.),  II.,  and  Eichst'adt's  preface 
to  it  ;  F.  Liicke,  Grundriss  der  neutest.  Hermeneutik  und  ihrer  Geschichte, 
Gott.  1817  ;  H.  N.  Klausen,  Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.,  translated  from  the 
Danish  (L.  1841),  pp.  77-337;  S.  Lntz,  Hermeneutik,  p.  101  fP.  Cf.  the  well- 
known  works  on  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  literature  by  L.  E.  Du  Pin, 
W.  Cave,  R.  Ceilliex-,  C.  Oudin,  and  others,  the  hermeneutic  manuals  of  J.  A. 
Ernesti  on  the  N.  T.  [Institutio  interpretis  N.  T.,  oth  ed.,  1809,  E.  tr.  by 
Terrot,  1843],  of  J.  S.  Semler,  G.  L.  Bauer,  G.  W.  Meyer,  J.  H.  Pareau 
[Principles  of  Interpretation,  E.  tr.  by  Forbes,  Edinb.  1840,  2  vols.],  on  the 
O.  T.,  etc.  Schrockh's  Kirchengesch.,  passim  ;  Eichhorn,  Asiat.  Sprachkunde, 
p.  538  ff.;  Baumgarten,  Comm.  on  the  Pentateuch,  Introd.  ;  Landerer,  Art. 
Hermeneutik  in  Herzog's  Enci/kl.,  especially  p.  797  ff.;  L.  Diestel,  Gesch.  des 
A.  T.  in  der  chr.  Kirche,  Jena,  1869.  [Add  the  hermeneutical  works  of 
Immer,  Herm.  d.  N.  T.,  Wittenb.  1873,  E.  tr.  by  Newman,  Andover,  1877 ; 


NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITERS.  527 

J.  P.  Lange,  Grundriss  d.  bibl.  Hermeneutik,  Heidelb.  1878  ;  F.  X.  Reitlimayr 
(R.  C),  Lehrbuch  d.  bibl.  Hermeneutik,  Kempten,  1874  ;  J.  C.  C.  v.  Hofmann 
Hermeneutik,  Nordl.  1880.  Also  L.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible  et  de  Vexeghe 
biblique  jusqu'  a  nos  Jours,  P.  1881.  Arts.  Hermeneutics,  by  Prof.  Salmoiid, 
m  Enajcl.  Brit.,  and  in  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopcedia.] 

On  particular  periods.  Ancient  :  D.  Whitby,  De  SS.  Scripturarum  inter- 
pretatione  secundum  patrum  commentarios,  Lond.  1714  ;  C.  W.  Fliio-o-e  Gesch 
der  theolog.  V/issenschaften,  179G,  3  Pts.  ;  J.  G.  Rosenmiiller,  Hist'Hiterpreta- 
tionis  II.  SS.  in  ecclesia  chr.,  L.  1795-1812,  5  vols,  (first  in  a  series  of  academic 
programmes)  ;  F.  Vogl,  Die  h.  S.  und  ihre  Interpretation  durch  die  h.  Vaier, 
Augsb.  1836. 

Medieval :  J.  B.  Bossuet,  Einl.  in  die  Gesch.  der  Welt  und  Religion,  con- 
tmued  by  J.  A.  Cramer,  V.  2  ;  VI. 

Modern  :  G.  W.  Meyer,  Gesch.  der  Schrifterkl.  seit  die  Wiederherstellung  der 
Wissenschaften,  Gott.  1802  ff.,  5  Pts.  , 

Bibliograpliieal  notices  are  collected  in  Le  Long,  Bibl.  s.,  II.;  J.  F.  Mayer, 
Bibl.  biblica,  L.  1709,  continued  by  C.  Arndt,  Host.  1713,  uncompleted  :  A. 
Calmet,  Dictionaire  de  la  Bible  (P.  1722  flf.,  and  freq.)  ;  in  the  Appendix 
.  under  the  title  Bibliotheque  biblique,  also  in  Latin  (German  by  Glockuer, 
L.  1751  ff.,  4  vols..  Vol.  IV.)  ;  J.  F.  Buddeus,  Isagoge  in  theoloqiam  (1729), 
d'z,7^",'"  '  ^-   Scliw»"^el,   BibUoth.  exeg.,  Frankf.  1734  ;   M.   Lilienthal, 

Bibhsch  exegetische  Bibliuthck,  Kdn.  1740  ;  idem,  Biblischer  ArcMvarius  der 
h.  S.,  Koii.  1745  f.,  2  vols.,  4°  ;  J.  J.  C.  Freiesleben,  Prodromus  hist.  lit.  SS. 
imprimis  N  T.  mterpretum,  L.  1758  ;  J.  G.  Walch,  Bibliotheca  theol.  selecta, 
IV.  (l/6o),  and  m  many  more  general  bibliographical  works,  especially 
Grdsse  s  LiteraturgescL,  II.  1072  if.,  III.  243  &.,  V.  455  If.  Catalogues  of  the 
works  specially  belonging  under  this  head  may  be  found  in  J.  F.  Mayer,  I.  c, 
pp.  1-46  ;  Pfaif,  Hist,  theol.  lit.,  I.  140  ff.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Haiidb.,  I.  37  S. 

502.  Nevertheless  Christian  exegesis  is  as  old  as  Christianity 
itself.  _  For  although  there  was  no  methodical  study  of  the 
apostolic  writings,  learned  Christians  occupied  themselves  in 
the  theological  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  only  col- 
lection of  sacred  books  at  that  time  generally  accredited. 
They  had  in  this  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  who  had  shown 
how  in  the  sacred  records  of  the  earlier  revelations  of  God  the 
prophecy  and  confirmation  of  the  later  might  be  found.  The 
exegetical  argumentation  was  naturally  carried  on  under  the 
same  principles  and  in  the  same  way  which  had  been  followed 
in  the  schools  of  the  Rabbins  and  in  the  instruction  of  the 
people^  in  the  synagogues.  The  first  Christians  had  their 
exegesis,  as  they  did  their  Scriptures,  in  common  with  the 
Jews. 

J.  C.  B.  Dopke,  Hermeneutik  der  neutest.  Schriftsteller,  L.  1829  ;  A.  T. 
Hartmaim,  Die  Verbindung  des  A.  T.  mit  dem  N.,  Hamb.  1831,  pp.  425-699  ; 
Redepenning,  Comm.  in  vatic,  mess.,  Pt.  III.,  1845. 

Cf.  above,  §  281  ff. 

503.  But  exegesis  was  not  everywhere  uniform  in  its  ten- 
dency among  the  Jews.  In  Palestine,  except  in  so  far  as  it 
was  _  used  to  supplement  legal  provisions,  it  served  chiefly  to 
gratify  that  vehement  longing  with  which  minds  were  turning 
to  the  future,  and  hence  had  taken  on  a  peculiar  divinatory 


528  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

character.  It  traced  in  the  text  of  Scripture,  as  it  were  in  a 
Lieroo-lypb  of  many  significations,  signs  of  the  great  future, 
and  thus  formed  the  unsteady,  unsubstantial  bridge  which 
bound  too-ether  the  remembrances  and  the  expectations  of  the 
people  over  the  present  abyss  of  despair  and  torpor. 

Examples  (though  not  from  contemporary  sources)  in  the  Targums,  in  the 
Talmud,  and  in  numberless  writings  of  the  Rabbins.  Ancient  examples  of 
Jewish  exposition  for  eschatological  purposes  :  Mt.  ii.  5  ;  xvii.  10  ;  xxii.  42  ; 
Jn.  vii.  27,  42,  cf.  i.  46,  etc. 

Distinction  of  the  verbal  signification  ^W^  (the  body,  SDI^),  from  the 
hidden  meaning,  IID,  Tiai,  HW^l  (the  soul,  Snau;3).  Hence  the  ex- 
pressions tI7~n^5  for  a  mystic  commentary,  ^ti:7"n>  for  an  exegete.  (tTIl, 
to  seek,  to  investigate  in  the  Scriptures,  then  to  treat  learnedly  of  them,  in  the 
N.  T.,  Cvrelv,  o-uClTTjTTjj.)  The  cabalistic  operations  of  Gematria  (exegesis  by 
reckoning  up  the  numerical  value  of  the  separate  letters),  Temura  (by  sub- 
stitution of  letters  from  differently  arranged  alphabets) ,  Notarikon  (by  the 
resolution  of  words  into  the  initial  letters  of  others,  etc.),  bear  about  the  same 
relation  to  Scripture  that  magic  does  to  Nature.  The  high  antiquity  of  such 
proceedings  cannot  be  denied  in  view  of  such  passages  as  Rev.  xiii.  18  (cf. 
Jerome  and  other  expositors  on  Jer.  xxv.  26  ;  Targum  and  LXX.  on  Jer.  li. 
1),  although  our  knowledge  of  them  depends  almost  entirely  upon  much 
later  facts  and  authorities. 

W.  Schickard,  Bechinath  Happeruschim,  i.  e.,  Examen  comment,  rabbin,  in 
Mosen,  Tiib.  1521  ;  S.  Glass,  Philolog.  s.,  p.  57,  ed.  Bauer  ;  Ph.  D'Acquin, 
Veterum  rahhinorum  in  exponendo  Pentateucho  modi  tredecim  (Crenius,  0pp., 
IV.)  ;  Is.  Pels,  De  allegoriis  talmudico-rabbinicis,  Frankf.  1707  ;  A.  J.  v.  d. 
Hardt,  De  Judceorum  statuto  sensum  S.  injiectendi,  Helmst.  1728  ;  idem,  De 
sophismatibus  Judceorum  in  probandis  suis  const itutionibus,  Helmst.  1728  ; 
idem,  De  Midrasch  symbolica  commentandi  ratione,  Helmst.  1729  ;  Eisen- 
menger,  Entdecktes  Judenthum,  I.  453-493  ;  Wiiliner,  Antiqq.  kebr.,  1.  341— 
530  ;  E.  A.  Frommann,  De  erroribus  qui  in  interpr.  V.  T.  a  Judceis  manarunt, 
Cob.  1763  ;  letters  on  exegesis,  in  Eichhorn's  Bibl.,Y.  203  ff.;  H.  S.  Hirsch- 
feld,  Der  Geist  der  talmudischen  Auslegung  der  Bibel,  Berl.  1840,  2  vols.  ; 
Dopke,  I.  c,  p.  88  ff.,  104  ff.  ;  B.  Welte,  Geist  und  Werth  der  altrabbinischen 
Schriftauslegung  {Tub.  Quartalschr.,  1842,  I.).  Cf.  also  the  literature  under 
§539. 

504.  Very  different,  especially  in  aim,  was  exegesis  among 
the  Hellenists,  particularly  at  Alexandria.  If  in  the  mother- 
land the  letter  of  the  law  had  become  ossified  in  the  life 
of  the  people,  here  the  attempt  of  the  schools  was  to  volatilize 
it  and  resolve  it  into  a  form  altogether  new  and  foreign. 
Greek  philosophy,  and  the  most  ingenious  form  of  it,  least 
of  all  akin  to  the  positive,  intelligently  ethical  tendency  of 
Hebraism,  was  to  be  naturalized  in  it,  and  a  new  exegetical 
art,  that  of  turning  history  into  parable  and  transforming  the 
dry  Levitical  Law  into  blooming  metaphysics,  was  necessary 
in  order  to  adjust  the  heaven-wide  difference,  and  to  conceal 
the  already  inwardly  complete  apostasy.  This  art  itself,  how- 
ever, like  the  philosophy  to  which  it  was  subservient,  was  an 
exotic. 


EABBINS  —  ALEXANDRIANS  —  APOSTLES.  529 

Definition  of  the  idea  of  allegorical  exposition  as  "an  interpretation 
whereby,  without  sufficient  reason,  an  expression  is  treated  as  figurative, 
and  consequently  improperly  explained ;  "  Klausen,  Hermeneutik,  p.  87. 

Allegorical  interpretation  of  Greek  poets  by  Plato  (Repuh.,  II.,  p.  377, 
etc.),  the  Stoics,  especially  Clirysippus  (Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deorum,  I.  15  ; 
II.  24  f.),  the  Neo-Platonists,  especially  Porphyry.  Cf.  Pseudo-Clement, 
Homil.,  VI.,  Recogn.,  X.  30  fip.;  Eichhorn  m  his  BiUiothek,  V.  222  f.;  Creuzer, 
Symbolik,  I.,  ch.  vi. 

Allegorical  mterpretation  of  the  Scriptures  among  the  Alexandrian  Jews 
with  an  apologetic  aim,  in  support  of  Hebrew  ideas  and  institutions  against 
the  Greeks,  but  much  more  in  support  of  neological  speculation  against  the 
traditional  Levitical-realistic  Judaism.  So  Aristobulus,  c.  175  B.  c.  (Eich- 
horn, I.  c,  V.  253  if.  ;  L.  C.  Valckenaer,  De  Aristohulo  Judceo,  Leyd.  1806), 
the  Therapeutse  (Philo,  De  vita  contempl.,  ch.  iii.,  x.),  and  above  all  Philo,  the 
contemporary  of  Jesus.  (0pp.,  ed.  Mangey,  Lond.  1742,  2  vols.,  fol.  ;  ed. 
Pfeiffer,  Str.  and  Erl.  1785  if.  incomplete  ;  ed.  Richter,  L.1828,  8  vols.,  12°; 
cf .  H.  Planck,  De  princip'ds  et  causis  interpretationis  philoniance  allegoricce, 
Gott.  1806  ;  C.  G.  L.  Grossmann,  De  theologies  Philonis  fontihus  et  auctoritate, 
L.  1829  ;  F.  J.  Biet,  Quid  in  interpr.  S.  S.  alleg.  Philo  a  grcecis  sumpserit, 
St.  Cloud,  1854  ;  and  in  general  the  histories  of  the  Alexandrian  religious 
philosophy  by  Diilme  (1834),  Gfrorer  (1831),  and  others.)  —  Distinction  of 
Jj/i/X'"**^  ^^^^  v^^fJ^^aTLKol,  exoteric  and  esoteric  teaching  ;  ?j  ptjttj  SnjyTjcris,  q 
rpoiriKi],  (TvfxfioXiKr],  r]  Si    vnovoLwv,  6ia  aviJ.I36\oov,  etc. 

Cf.  in  general  H.  Olshausen,  Ueher  tiefern  Schriftsinn,  1824,  pp.  16-44  ;  De 
lis  qui  ante  Philonem  S.  S.  allegorice  interpretati  sunt,  Reg.  1814  ;  J.  B.  Carp- 
zov,  in  liis  Commentary  on  Romans  and  Hebrews  ;  Z.  Eranlcel,  Ueher  paldst. 
und  alex.  Schriftforschung,  Br.  1854. 

It  is  not  to  be  understood  from  this  presentation  of  the  matter  that  the 
two  methods  jnst  described  were  always  strictly  separated  by  geographical 
lines.  On  the  contrary,  in  consequence  of  the  flourishing  commercial  rela- 
tions between  the  nations,  there  was  early  an  interchange  of  ideas,  and  in 
particular  the  new  foreign  element  soon  began  to  exert  its  seductive  power 
upon  Hebraism,  and  rendered  the  more  service  to  the  theosophic  tendencies 
of  the  Aramfean  Jews  from  the  fact  that  their  fathers  had  already  made 
use  of  the  same  means  for  different  purposes. 

Similar,  but  wholly  independent  studies  among  Mohammedan  theoso- 
phists. 

505.  In  both  directions  the  Apostles  were  the  pupils  of  their 
centuiy.  They  had  in  common  with  the  one  tendency  the 
principal  subject  of  their  exegetical  endeavors,  tlie  doctrine  of 
the  Messianic  salvation  and  kingdom,  from  the  other  they  often 
borrowed  its  method.  Their  standpoint,  however,  was  differ- 
ent, inasmuch  as,  being  in  possession  of  new  and  more  com- 
plete revelations,  their  aim  now  was  to  trace  them  back  and 
find  them  again  in  the  ancient  prophets.  Their  predecessors 
had  worked  out  by  means  of  their  exegesis  an  unknown  great- 
ness ;  their  attempt  was  to  prove  this  working  out  by  the  help 
of  the  solution  of  the  great  problem  already  obtained  in  another 
way.  The  former,  with  difficulty  and  misgiving,  had  fashioned 
the  clearness  of  the  futui'e  out  of  the  obscurities  of  the  past ; 
they,  with  ease  and  certainty,  saw  the  Old  Covenant  in  the 
mirror  of  the  New,  and  as  its  prototvpe. 
34 


530  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

The  Apostles  were  moreover  perfectly  conscious  of  this  more  advantageous 
staiulpoiiit  ;  Lk.  xxiv.  C-8  ;  Ju.  ii.  17,  22  ;  xii.  IG  ;  xx.  9  ;  especially  2  Cor. 
iii.  13  a. 

It  is  certain  that  the  Apostles,  especially  the  Palestinians,  frequently  and 
effectively  used  the  Jewish  literal  exegesis  in  support  of  the  Messianic  theol- 
ogy, and  there  is  no  doubt  that  by  their  oirais  irXripaiey  direct  prophecies  are 
meant  ;  although  the  irrelevancy  of  the  connection,  a  capital  defect  in  the 
Rabbinical  exegesis,  and  an  indisputable  fact  in  the  apostolic,  has  led 
moderns  to  diiferent  views  of  its  purpose.  Cf.  Mt.  ii.  15,  18  ;  iii.  3  ;  iv.  15  ; 
viii.  17  ;  xxi.  5  ;  xxvii.  35  ;  Acts  i.  20,  and  many  otheis.  Such  dogmatic 
explanations  are  even  attached  to  single  words,  Mt.  ii.  23  ;  Heb.  ii.  13. 

That  we  are  not  here  to  tliiuk  of  a  theoretically  recognized  double  sense, 
or  of  any  of  the  typologizing  significations  at  present  in  favor,  is  shown 
incontestibly  by  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  ix.  9  ;  Acts  ii.  29  ;  xiii.  30  ;  Gal.  iii. 
16,  and  the  quotations  in  Heb.  i. 

But  beside  this  simpler  exposition  there  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  Apostles 
a  higher,  reminding  one  of  the  Alexandrian.  The  fundamental  thought  of  it 
is  the  idea  of  typology  (tuttos,  Rom.  v.  14  ;  irapapuA^,  Heb.  ix.  9  ;  (tkio,  twv 
u.iKK6vrciiv  opposed  to  awfxa  (Xpiarov,  the  real,  the  intended,  the  final),  Col. 
ii.  17  ;  Heb.  viii.  5  ;  fj.vaTT]piov,  Eph.  v.  32  ;  ■jrveviJ.aTiKws,  Rev.  xi.  8),  and 
Te\ei6Tris  is  made  to  consist  in  the  understanding  of  it,  Heb.  v.  14  ;  vi.  1  ; 
cf .  1  Cor.  ii.  and  iii.  Further  examples,  Jn.  i.  29  ;  iii.  14  ;  vi.  48  ff. ;  1  Cor. 
V.  7  ;  X.  4  ;  Eph.  v.  30  ;  Mt.  xii.  40  ;  Heb.  iv.  7,  9.  In  the  same  way  may 
also  be  explained  passages  like  Jn.  xix.  37,  Acts  xiii.  47,  and  others,  and  in 
general  all  references  to  O.  T.  events.  'AA\r]yopia,  Gal.  iv.  24,  may  also  be 
placed  under  this  head,  unless  one  prefeis  to  regard  it  as  referring  to 
a  purely  spiritualizing  (Philonic-Origenistic)  treatment  of  history.  Cf. 
Kbstlin,  in  the  Tub.  Jahrb.,  1851,  II.  154  S. 

In  many  passages  tliis  manner  of  applying  Scripture  seems  to  be  inter- 
woven unconsciously  with  the  Christian  linguistic  usage  ;  Acts  vii.  51;  Rom. 
ii.  29  ;  xii.  1  ;  1  Cor.  v.  8  ;  1  Pet.  i.  2  ;  1  Jn.  ii.  27.  Here  belongs  also  the 
symbolism  of  names  in  the  Apocalypse,  ii.  14,  20  ;  xvii.  5. 

Cf .  Bleek,  Ueier  die  dogmatische  Benutzung  alttestamentlicher  Ausspriiche  im 
iV.  T.  (Studien  und  Kritiken,  1835,  II.  441  tt'.)  ;  idem,  m  his  commentary  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  II.  94  ff.  ;  De  Wette,  Ueher  die  syviholisch 
typische  Lehrart  im  Br.  an  die  Hebrder  (^Berliner  theol.  Zeitschr.,  III.  1  ff.); 
Tholuck,  Das  A.  T.  im  Neuen,  an  appendix  to  his  commentary  on  the  same 
Epistle  ;  R.  Stier,  Beitrdge  zur  hibl.  Theol.,  p.  452  ff.  For  polemic  literature 
see  below,  §  584  ff.  G.  Rope,  De  V.  T.  locorum  allegatione  in  apostolorum 
lihris,  Halle,  1827  ;  R.  Nagel,  Char,  der  Auffassung  des  A.  T.  im  Neuen, 
Halle,  1850. 

From  the  Christian  standpoint,  and  in  view  of  their  respective  objects, 
purposes,  and  methods  of  procedure,  the  superiority  of  the  apostolic  her- 
meneutics  to  the  Jewish,  especially  the  Alexandrian,  cannot  be  disputed. 
Nor,  as  soon  as  Christianity  and  Judaism  are  recognized  as  different  stages 
of  development  of  the  same  revelation,  can  there  be  any  debate  as  to  the 
justness  of  its  fundamental  principle,  although  there  may  doubtless  be 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  limits  of  its  application  and  the  degree  to 
which  the  Apostles  were  conscious  of  the  grounds  of  their  exposition.  With 
reference  to  the  latter  point,  it  is  very  clear  that  in  the  Pauline  school  the 
necessity  was  felt  of  doing  away  with  the  Law  as  a  wall  of  separation 
(Eph.  ii.  14),  a  task  related  to  the  Alexandrian.  C.  Buob,  in  the  Strassb, 
Revue,  II.  103  ;  E.  Scherer,  ibidem,  IX.  65  ;  Diestel,  p.  41  ff. 

No  definite  consciousness  of  the  diversity  of  the  two  methods  can  be 
pointed  out  in  the  N.  T.  On  the  contrary,  such  assertions  as  Acts  iii.  24, 
Jn.  V.  46,  Lk.  xxiv.  27,  44,  imply  the  complete  coordination  or  interchange 
of  the  two. 


APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.  531 

Cf.  in  general  Hist,  de  la  TTicol  Chre't.,  I.  293  ff.,  II.  110  if.  (3cl  ed.,  I.  408  ; 
II.  85.)  If  in  the  course  of  this  history  somewhat  less  attention  is  paid  to 
the  O.  T.,  this  is  chiefly  because  the  relation  of  Chi-istian  science  to  it  really 
affects  but  a  single  doctrine. 

506.  At  first  the  Christians  did  not  go  beyond  the  point  of 
view  of  their  inspired  teachers.  Indeed,  as  they  were  inferior 
to  them  in  general  intellectually,  so  they  did  not  even  rise  to 
a  clear  and  worthy  conception  of  the  connection  of  the  divine 
revelations.  It  is  not  so  much  to  be  attributed  to  want  of 
acquaintance  with  the  language  and  history  that  the  Christian 
exposition  of  the  Old  Testament  became  chiefly  a  straining  after 
types,  as  insipid  as  it  was  insatiable,  as  it  is  to  the  enticing 
ease  of  this  study,  as  soon  as,  subjected  to  no  scientific  rules, 
it  has  become  mere  ingenuity.  Moreover,  it  rendered  very 
good  service  in  the  controversy  with  Judaism,  as  well  as  in 
silencing  the  various  opponents  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
yielded  the  richest  spoil  for  purposes  of  edification.  These 
ruling  interests  excluded  all  other  treatment  of  these  books. 

Indeed  this  method  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  scientiiically  consistent, 
if  the  identity  (not  merely  the  analogy)  of  all  revelatiou  is  asserted  ;  from 
which  assertion  there  follows  further  the  complete  passivity  of  the  prophets, 
their  own  non-understanding  of  their  prophecies,  the  necessity  of  a  confir- 
mation of  the  Gospel  history  by  the  O.  T.,  the  complete  resolution  of  the 
latter  into  types  ((Tvfj.0o\a)  or  moral  allegories  (jrapaPoAal),  and  the  need  of  a 
peculiar  and  higher  illumination  of  the  expositor. 

Illustrations  and  examples  in  Barnabas  (§  234),  Clement  (§  235),  but 
especially  in  Justin  Martyr  (f  1G7),  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  theorist  of 
these  preparatory  epochs.  {0pp.,  ed.  Bened.,  P.  1742,  fob;  ed.  J.  C.  T.  Otto, 
Jena,  1842  If.,  3  vols.  8°.)  See  especially  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  chs.  xlii.,  Ixviii.,  xcii., 
pp.  2G1,  294,  319.  —  Ch.  cxix.,  p.  346  :  It  would  be  impossible  to  understand 
the  Scriptures  d  fj,^  de\7]iJ.aTi  tov  9eov  iXaiiofxev  x"P"'  ''"''"  vorjcrai.  Cohort,  ad 
gent.,  ch.  viii. :  Prophecy  is  a  gift  of  God,  not  a  thing  of  human  endeavor  ;  the 
mind  remains  passive  over  against  tt?  tov  delov  irvevtxaTos  evepyeia,  V  avrh  rb 
Oilov  e'l  ovpavov  Karibv  irXTJKTpov  llxrir^p  opydvca  KiOdpas  Tivds  ^  \vpas  roTs  SiKaiois 
avSpdai  xpw^evoi'  t^V  t<Sv  Otiwv  tj/mu  airoKaAv'pri  yvcScriv.  Monographs  on  him 
(mostly  dogniatico-historical)  by  C.  Otto,  Jena,  1841  ;  T.  Abauzit,  Mont. 
1846  ;  A.  Kayser,  Str,  1850  ;  E.  Scherer,  in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  XII. 

507.  No  further  preparations  had  been  made  when,  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  the  apostolic  writings  also  were 
brought  into  the  realm  of  theological  discussions,  so  that  from 
this  time  on  both  portions  of  the  Scripture  had  the  same 
history  in  this  respect  as  well,  except  in  so  far  as  their  mutual 
relation  determined  differently  the  laws  of  exposition  in  details. 
The  fact  has  already  been  mentioned,  and  repeatedly,  that  at 
that  time  ecclesiastical  tradition  had  attained  ruling  authority ; 
it  is  therefore  to  be  expected  that  its  influence  would  be  felt  in 
exegesis.  And  so  there  was  added  to  this  striving  after  a  sup- 
posed deeper  understanding  by  arbitrary  interpretation  of  the 
assumedly  figurative  language  of  the  Bible  a  second  principle. 


532  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

fundamentally  just  as  correct,  in  application  equally  dangerous 
and  misleading,  that  of  the  analogy  of  the  faith,  i.  e.,  the 
necessity  of  a  harmony  between  the  results  of  exegesis  and 
the  contents  of  dogmatic  tradition.  These  two  principles,  now 
separated,  now  combined,  were  the  guiding  stars  of  Christian 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  all  through  the  period  of  its 
childhood ;  its  most  flourishing  period  falls  within  the  next 
three  centuries. 

It  is  notewoitliy  that  the  more  the  rule  of  faith  ohtains  supreme  and 
undisputed  authority,  the  more  extravagant  and  unrestrained  becomes  alle- 
gory, as  if  its  orthodoxy  gave  sufficient  warrant  for  its  practice. 

It  is  evident  from  tliis  that  in  the  next  period,  and  in  ancient  times 
generally,  we  cannot  speak  so  much  of  different  hermeneutical  systems, 
mutually  exclusive  of  one  another,  as  of  prevailing  tendencies  and  methods. 
Yet  some  isolated  exceptions  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  presentation. 

The  greater  or  less  learning  of  the  individual  expositors  is  of  little  or  no 
importance,  since  the  end  sought  was  mostly  not  so  much  the  objective 
understanding  of  the  Scriptures  as  dialectical,  rhetorical,  or  ethical  profit. 
Moreover  the  example  and  authority  of  predecessors,  combined  with  a  cer- 
tain exegetical  tradition  as  to  the  apostolic  usage  of  language  running 
parallel  with  the  dogmatic  (§  359),  was  a  valued  aid  as  a  sort  of  preliminary- 
knowledge.  ^ 

C.  J.  Estlander,  De  usu  S.  S.  in  eccl.  cath.  duobus  primis  p.  C.  seculis, 
Helsingf.  1829. 

508.  It  was  in  the  first  instance  the  philosophic  tendency, 
which  had  taken  possession  of  many  minds  which  had  been 
drawn  to  Christianity  in  different  ways,  that  led  to  a  scientific 
treatment  of  the  Scriptures,  also  of  the  New  Testament.  And 
here  the  so-called  heretics  set  the  example  for  the  teachers 
who  stood  in  closer  connection  with  the  Apostolic  Church. 
The  necessity  of  seeking  for  their  peculiar  doctrines  a  support 
which  should  secure  to  them  a  place  within  the  Church,  with 
whose  tradition  they  found  themselves  at  many  points  in  con- 
flict, drove  them  to  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  and  to  such 
an  interpretation  of  them  as  would  bring  them  into  harmony 
with  their  systems  or  oppose  in  advance  a  refutation  of  these 
systems  by  means  of  them.  In  general,  the  very  nature  of  a  so- 
called  Gnosis  or  deeper  knowledge  of  religious  truths  implied 
that,  as  the  great  interpreter  of  all  riddles,  it  would  be  more 
inclined  to  lean  upon  writings  still  unknown  to  many  or  kept 
secret,  than  upon  the  simple  faith  which  the  unlearned  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  could  obtain  from  the  nearer  and  more 
generally  accessible  sources. 

The  last  remark  is  still  confirmed  wherever  a  religious  mysticism  seizes 
upon  the  more  obscure  books  chiefly,  while  the  "  simple  "  stand  by  the  more 
plain. 

Iren.,  Adv.  Hrer.,  III.  12  :  reliqui  (beside  Marcion,  §  246)  scripturas  qui- 
dem  confitentur  interpretationes  vero  convertunt.  Tertull.,  Prmscr.,  xxxviii. :  Alius 
[^Marcion^  manu  scripturas,  alius  IValentinus'}  sensus  expositione  intervertit. 


GNOSTICS.  633 

.  .  .  Marcion  palam  machcera  non  stilo  usus  est.  .  .  .  Valentinus  pepercit  quo- 
niam  non  ad  niateriam  Scripturas  sed  materiam  ad  Scripturas  excogitavit  et 
tamen  plus  ahstulil  et  plus  adjecit  auferens  proprietates  singulorum  verhorum  et 
adjiciens  dispositlones  non  comparentium  rerum.  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  IV.  29  : 
The  SeveriailS  XP'^"'''^''  fva/yy^Kiois  iSiws  fp/j.r]uevovTes  Toiv  lepuu  ra  j/orj/uara  ypa- 
<pS)v.  Epiphaiiius,  Hceres.  indie,  0pp.,  I.  I39G  :  The  Moiitauists  KexRVTai-  Tfa- 
\ai^  Ka\  vea  StadrjKT]  kuto,  rhv  povv  rhv  'iSiou  fj.eTaTroiovfj.fyoi.  Inasmuch  as  the  al- 
legorical method  of  iuterjiretation  had  for  its  essential  aim  the  exjjlaiuing 
away  of  the  Jewish  element  in  Christianity,  Marcion,  to  whom  even  the  Jew- 
ish form  was  repugnant,  cannot  have  made  use  of  it. 

Examples  of  Gnostic  interpretations  are  collected  by  Irenseus  (Adv.  Hcer., 
I.,  passim),  Origen  {Comm.  in  Johann.  ev.),  and  others,  and  from  them  by 
Grabe,  Spicil.  PP.,  II.  43,  G2,  83  ff.  ;  R.  Simon,  Hist,  des  commentateurs,  p. 
25  ff.  ;  Baur,  Ckr.  Gnosis,  p.  234  ff.  Now,  in  particular,  the  so-called  Phi- 
losophoumena  (§  292)  should  be  compared. 

Special  mention  is  made  of  Basilides'  twenty-four  books  e^-nyrjriKa  els  rb 
fvayyeXioi'  (his  own  Gospel  ?  §  245.  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  TV.  506  ;  Enseb., 
H.  E.,  IV.  7)  and  of  Heracleon's  commentary  on  Luke  (Clem.,  ib.,  502)  and 
John  (Origen,  I.  c,  passim).  Other  fragments  are  found  in  the  evnofxal  e'/c 
ruv  @eo56TOi)  Kal  ttjs  avaroXiKTjs  Ka\ovfj.evr]s  SiSacTKaXlas  Kara  robs  OvaAeprlvov  XP^^' 
ovs  and  eK  rwu  ■npo<p-r]TiKwv  eK\oya\,  ascribed  to  Clement.  (Also  in  Fabricius, 
Bihl.  gr.,  V.  134.)  Cf.  J.  G.  V.  Engelhardt,  De  excerplis  ex  Theodoto  et  doctr. 
orient.,  etc.,  Erl.  1830  ;  and  Stieren's  Irenceus,  I.  899  ff. 

The  Valentinian  Ptolemfens  points  out  divine.  Mosaic,  and  traditional  ele- 
ments in  the  Law,  and  distinguishes  in  the  first  class  those  portions  which 
Jesus  came  to  fulfill,  Mt.  v.  17,  Rom.  vii.  12,  those  which  are  abrogated  be- 
cause mingled  with  error,  Mt.  v.  38,  Eph.  ii.  15,  finally  tyi)ical  and  symbol- 
ical Jjortions,  S  ixereOriKev  6  ffcuT^p  airh  alcrBrjTov  Kal  <paivofjevov  M  rh  vvev/xaTiKhv 
Kal  aopuToy,  the  ritual  law,  1  Cor.  v.  7.  {Ep.  ad  Floram,  in  Ejiiphan.,  Hceres., 
xxxiii.  ;  Grabe,  Spicil.  PP.,  II.  68  ;  A.  Stieren,  De  Ptolemcei  Ep.  ad  Floram, 
Jena,  1843.)     Doubt  about  the  genuineness. 

With  still  less  difficulty  the  heretical  asceticism  found  in  certain  utter- 
ances of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  scriptural  warrant  for  its  ideas  of  celibacy, 
etc.     Cf.  the  fragments  of  Tatian,  above,  §  292. 

609,  Similar  needs  and  attempts  gave  rise  to  analogous  phe- 
nomena in  the  bosom  of  the  Church  itself.  The  faith  which 
had  been  received  in  popular  dress  must  be  worked  out  scien- 
tifically and  adjusted  to  the  results  of  a  speculation  which  had 
grown  up  upon  a  different  basis.  The  consciousness  of  supe- 
rior mental  power  in  individuals  who  had  received  another  in- 
spiration beside  that  of  moral  regeneration  led  to  the  delusion 
of  a  special  prerogative  for  a  completely  subjective  treatment 
of  the  sacred  books.  From  this  point  to  the  pretense  of  a  spe- 
cial illumination  for  the  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  per- 
haps even  to  the  belief  in  it,  was  but  a  step  farther.  In  this 
sense,  the  so-called  mystic  exposition  was  used  in  the  Greek 
Church  even  before  the  close  of  the  second  century,  although 
mostly  as  yet  without  definite  theoretical  rules. 

Distinction  between  nia-Tis  and  yvwais  (Clem.,  Strom.,  VII.  732  :  f]  fiev  irlff- 
Tis  aiivTojxos  effTi  Tuv  KaTei?eiy6vTuiv  yvwcris,  rj  yvwats  de  atrSdet^is  twv  5(0  rricrreajs 
7Tapei\r]IJ-fJ'-^'"^v  Sia  ttjs  KvpiaKrjs  SiSaiTKaAlas  eiroiKoSofiov/jeyri  rfj  Trlcrrei.),  and  the 
twofold  interpretation  founded  thereon,  according  to  the  letter  for  ordinary 


634  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Christians,  and  according  to  tlie  hidden  meaning  for  the  more  perfect  (yvuff- 

The  expression  mystic  interpretation  refers  to  the  biblical  idea  of  /xvarri- 
ptov  (t]  6eov  ffocpia  r)  aTT0KiKpvfji.ij.4vri,  %v  ouSels  tZv  apx6vroov  rov  aloiivo^  tovtov  eyvw- 
K€j/  .  .  .  ^^fuf  5e  aire KaKv^pey  o  Oebs  Sia  rod  irvev/uaTos,  1  Cor.  ii.  7  if.).  MvaTr)pi6v 
iffTt  rh  fJLi]  waff  I  ypcipt/j-ov  dAAa  jj.6vov  toIs  dewpov/xevois  (dappov/jifpoii),  Theodoret, 
on  Rom.  xi.  25. 

610.  It  certainly  was  based  upon  the  apostolic  model,  and 
and  in  so  far  was  only  a  further  application  of  the  hints  which 
were  contained  in  the  isolated  examples  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment use  of  Scripture.  But  what  it  really  promoted  and  de- 
veloped was  partly  the  stricter  idea  of  inspiration  which  would 
no  longer  tolerate  the  verbal  sense  of  many  biblical  narratives 
and  statements,  partly,  and  more  yet,  the  extreme  spiritual- 
izing tendency  of  the  more  noted  theologians  of  the  Greek 
Church.  Unsatisfied  as  philosophers  with  the  insipidity  of 
Judaism,  and  yet  confined  as  scriptural  scholars  to  its  narrow 
forms,  they  came  to  have  a  contempt  for  the  letter  and  for  the 
simple  history,  whether  of  the  heroes  and  fathers  of  Israel  or 
of  the  human  appearance  of  Jesus.  Only  the  authority  of  ec- 
clesiastical tradition  was  not  to  be  compromised.  The  literary 
centre  of  this  school  was  Alexandria,  where  human  philosophy 
was  able  to  maintain  its  ancient  prerogative  by  the  side  of 
Christianity. 

J.  A.  Dietelmaier,  Veterum  in  scliola  alex.  doctorimi  series,  Altd.  1746  ;  J. 
G.  Michaelis,  De  scholce  alexandrince  catecheticce  origine  progressu  et  dodoribus 
{Symbb.  Hit.  brem.,  I.  195  ff .) ;  J.  W.  Feiierliii,  De  ratlone  docendi  theologiam 
in  schola  alex.,  Gott.  1756  ;  J.  F.  Hilscher,  De  schola  alex.,  L.  1776  ;  H.  E. 
F.  Guerike,  De  schola  quce  Alexandrice  floruit  catechetica,  Halle,  1824  f.,  2 
vols,  (especially  II.  50  if.).  Here  belong  also  the  investigations  respecting 
the  Platonism  of  the  Church  Fathers,  formerly  vigorously  carried  on,  upon 
which  cf.  Niedner's  Zeitschrift  fur  hist.  Theol.,  1861,  III. 

J.  S.  Semler,  De  myst.  interpr.  studio  ab  cegypt.  PP.  repet.,  1760  ;  J.  F.  Le- 
bret,  De  origg.  et  principiis  alleg.  ss.  II.  interpret.,  Tiib.  1795  ;  G.  L.  Bauer, 
Hist,  interpretationis  mystical  V.  T.  (in  his  Hermen.  V.  T.,  p.  29  ff.)  ;  J.  A. 
Ernesti,  Narratio  critica  de  interpr.  prophetiarum  messian.  in  ecclesia  chr.,  L. 
1769  ;  M.  Baumgarten,  Commentar  zum  A.  T.,  Pt.  I.,  Introduction. 

It  is  incorrect  to  begin  the  series  of  N.  T.  exegetes  of  the  Catholic  Church 
with  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (f  180);  see  §§  297,  513.  Nor,  probably,  did 
Pantfenus,  the  first  head  of  the  school  of  Alexandria,  change  the  methods 
of  using  Scripture  before  in  favor. 

T.  Flav.  Clemens  Alex,  (f  217;  0pp.,  ed.  Sylburg,  Col.  1688  fol.  (according 
to  which  edition  he  is  here  cited) ;  ed.  Potter,  Oxf .  1715,  2  vols.,  fol.)  makes 
frequent  use  of  the  N.  T.  as  well  as  of  the  Old  according  to  the  following 
expressly  stated  principles  :  Tlaaa  ypacp-f)  i>s  iv  irapafioKfj  flprj/j-epr]  (^Strain.,  V. 
575).  Oyre  ^  TrpocpriTeia  ovre  6  ffWTi]p  airXws  .  .  .  ra  Oe7a  /xvarripia  a-Trecpdey^aro 
a\\'  iv  Trapa^o\a7s.  .  .  .  ^ETnKpvTTTOvrat  rhv  vovv  at  ypa(pa.\  'Iva  (TjTijTtKol  inrdpx'^fJ.ei' 
.  .  .  Tois  iK\(KTo7s  Twv  av6pwiroi)v  rols  e/<  Trlffreoos  els  yvwffiv  eyKp'nois  T7]pov/xevu  r^ 
ayia  ftvffT'fipia  Trapa/3oA.a7s  iyKaXiimTai  k.  t.  \.  (VI.  676  ff.).  In  the  passage  I. 
OOO  '.  TeTpax^s  i^fuv  iKXrjTTTeov  rov  vofxou  r^v  PovKrjffiv  f]  ws  ffrifjieiov  i/xcpaivovffav, 
^  ws  ivToKriv  Kvpovffav  ^  deffni^ovffav  ons  npofriTelav,  if  one  holds  to  the  simple 


MYSTICAL  EXPOSITION -ORIGEN.  535 

literal  sense,  there  lie  already  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Origenistic 
theory  and  of  the  medijeval  schematic  treatment. 

His  lost  work,  "TiroTuiraia-eis,  in  eight  books,  may  have  been  devoted  to 
more  special  biblical  studies,  although  the  remark  of  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  VI. 
14),  that  it  contained  a  short  Siriynais  of  the  whole  Scriptures,  points  rather 
to  a  mere  incidental  historico-theological  summary  than  to  a  proper  com- 
mentary.    Cf.  also  my  Hist,  du  Canon,  p.  95. 

Cf.  in  general  J.  G.  Walch,  De  Clemente  Alex,  ejusque  errorihus  {Alisc.  ss., 
pp.  510-574);  C.  F.  Kling,  in  the  Studien,  1841,  IV. 

511.  Now  came  a  man  who  won  for  these  hermeneutical 
principles,  long  instinctively  followed,  a  considerable  author- 
ity, not  only  by  combining  them  into  a  system  and  attempt- 
ing to  establish  them  scientifically,  but  also  by  a  long  series  of 
independent  exegetical  works,  in  which  he  for  the  first  time 
practically  applied  them  to  their  full  extent.  Origen  becam^ 
the  standard  of  scriptural  exegesis  in  the  whole  ancient 
Church,  partly  because  he  was  the  first,  and  because  example 
seems  at  that  time  to  have  had  even  greater  influence  than 
usual,  and  partly  because  he  was  really  exceedingly  brilliant 
according  to  the  taste  of  his  century,  which  admired  even  the 
caprices  of  an  uncontrolled  imagination  as  flashes  of  a  higher 
wisdom.  Gifted  with  a  versatile  mind,  of  broad  and  varied 
training,  he  knew  how  to  present  his  thoughts,  now  in  a  form 
adapted  to  the  larger  circle,  now  in  a  method  current  among 
the  thinking  classes,  and  he  did  not  neglect,  in  the  ethico- 
philosopliical  exposition  which  he  followed  by  preference,  the 
sober  historical  explanation  of  the  text. 

We  have  preserved,  partly  in  the  original,  partly  in  e/cAoyol,  partly  In 
Latin  translation  (probably  not  very  accurate),  especially  by  Rufinus  and 
Jerome,  works  upon  most  of  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  and  Commentaries  on 
Matthew,  Luke,  John,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Also  the  collection 
of  extracts  arranged  by  Basil  and  Gregory,  Philocalia,  ed.  Tarin.,  P.  1619, 
4°.  (For  editions  of  his  works,  see  §  311.)  His  theory  Is  given  fully  and 
systematically  in  his  work  Ilept  apx^v,  IV.  1  ff. 

The  works  of  Origen  are  called  T6fj.oi  (among  the  Latins  Commentarii), 
6/xi\iai  (sermones,  tractatus),  cnfifieicio-eis,  TrapeK0o\al  (scholia,  annotationes,  a 
genus  commaticum,  so  to  speak);  with  respect  to  the  latter  form  scholars 
are  not  agreed. 

From  a  critical  point  of  view  much  of  what  is  extant  is  not  altogether 
above  suspicion. 

J.  A.  Dathe  (prfes.  J.  A.  Ernestl),  De  Origene  interpretationis  grammaticce 
auctore,  L.  1756  ;  C.  R.  Hagenbach,  Obss.  circa  Origenis  methodum  interpr. 
S.  S.,  Basle,  1823  ;  J.  J.  Bochmger,  De  Origenis  allegorica  S.  S.  inter pretatione, 
Arg.  1829  If.,  3  Pts.  ;  cf.  L.  Rohrich,  Recherches  Ustoriques  et  critiques  sur 
Origene,  Geneva,  1835  ;  E.  R.  Redepenning,  Origenes,  1841,  1846,  2  vols.  ; 
Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.,  IV.  29-145.  [Neander,  Schaff,  Church  Histories']  ; 
Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  interpr..  III.  1-1.56  ;  R.  Simon,  Hist,  des  comment.,  p.  37  ff.; 
Huet,  Origeniana  (in  his  edition  cited  in  §  311),  Bk.  II.  ch.  2.  Older  writ- 
ings are  catalogued  in  Walch,  Bibl.  patrist.,  pp.  37,  465,  ed.  Danz.  Cf.  In 
general,  Fabricius,  Bibl.  gr.,  V.  247  ff.  ;  Oudin,  Scriptt.  eccl,  1.  231  ff.  ;  Von 
Colin,  in  the  Halle  EncyE.,  III.  5.     [E.  tr.  of   Origen's  writings  in  the 


536  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Ante-Nicene  Library,  Edinb.  1869-1872,  2  vols.  ;  see  Art.  Origen,  in  Scliaff- 
Herzog.] 

512.  He  regarded  the  Scriptures  as  a  living  organism,  like 
the  human,  the  three  elements  or  constituents  of  which  are 
likewise  different  in  value  and  purpose.  In  tlie  literal  or  ver- 
bal meaning,  which  he  compared  to  the  body,  he  found,  or 
probably  even  looked  for,  all  sorts  of  offenses  and  folly,  as  a 
sign,  intentionally  inserted,  that  the  reader  must  rise  above  it 
to  the  view  of  divinely  pure  truth.  This  he  found  first  in  the 
moral  sense,  which,  like  the  soul,  everywhere  permeates  the 
word  of  Scripture  and  so  gives  life  to  itself  and  to  all  Christen- 
dom. Higher  yet,  as  the  spirit  above  the  lower  powers,  stands 
the  mystic  sense,  which  is  hidden  from  the  Jews  and  from  most 
believers,  and  includes  the  mysteries  of  the  New  Covenant, 
both  those  already  revealed  and  those  only  to  be  revealed  in 
the  future  life.  Thus  Origen  was  continually  pointing  out  the 
analogies  between  the  visible  and  the  invisible  world,  and 
merging  the  historical  in  the  ideal. 

The  historical,  literal  sense,  rh  pt}T6v,  Th  aco/xaTiKSf,  r]  irpSx^tpos  iKdoxv,  v  ^*l's, 
7)  rl/t\7]  laropla,  on  account  of  actual  or  supposed  anthropomoi'pliisms,  contra- 
dictions, immoralities,  and  absurdities,  frequently  altogether  denied,  and  in 
any  case  little  valued.  Where  it  can  be  retained,  useful  for  the  simple  (ot 
air\ovaT€poi.) 

The  moral  sense,  fi  rpoiroAoyla,  not  a  mere  moral  application,  but  an  etliieo- 
mystical  treatment,  for  the  more  advanced  (oi  iirl  iviaov  o.vaBefir)K6Tes). 

The  mystic  sense,  rh  air6pp-rtTov,  r]  aWriyopia,  »;  avaywyi),  the  reference  to  the 
New  Covenant  and  the  kingdom  of  God  (discernible  only  by  the  Tt'Aeioj)  ; 
in  Origen  as  yet  without  separation  between  tliis  world  and  the  next  in  the 
hermeneutical  theory.  Otherwise  called  ^lavoia,  irvfvuaTiKrj  SiTjyncns,  i'6r}iu.a, 
0ea>pla.  On  the  disputed  meaning  of  the  last  word,  see  Morus,  Herm.,  II. 
210  ;  Von  Lengerke,  Ephrem  Syrus,  p.  143  f.,  and  in  general  Suicer,  m  the 
Thes.  eccL,  sub  voce. 

Relation  of  this  exegesis  to  Origen's  philosophical  system  of  the  analogies 
between  the  visible  and  the  invisible  world.  There  was  no  danger  of  look- 
ing for  or  of  finding  too  much  in  the  Scriptures  in  view  of  the  exhaustless 
stores  of  superhuman  wisdom  deposited  in  them. 

For  the  rest,  the  Alexandrians,  like  others,  appealed  to  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition, which  existed,  however,  to  their  minds,  in  the  common  consciousness 
of  the  Church,  in  an  inherited  Gnosis,  rather  than  in  definite  fonuulas  or 
any  external  authority. 

513.  Origen  enjoyed,  even  during  his  lifetime,  particularly 
on  account  of  his  marvelous  learning,  a  wide-spread  fame,  and 
became  the  exegetical  oracle  of  the  Church.  Even  the  Latins, 
little  inclined  to  speculation,  could  not  escape  his  influence. 
And  when  afterward  his  orthodoxy  was  first  doubted  and  then 
denied  by  a  stricter  age,  his  method  had  long  since  become  the 
common  property  of  theologians,  and  had  nothing  to  fear  from 
this  adverse  judgment  of  its  author.  It  was  further  recom- 
mended, notwithstanding  the  decline  of  freedom  in  religious 


ORIGEN  —  TERTULLIAN.  537 

thought,  and  aside  from  the  prevailing  taste,  especially  by  the 
fact  that  it  gave  easy  help  over  actual  difficulties  in  interpreta- 
tion, and  that  far  from  exhausting  its  subject,  it  permitted  any 
one  not  altogether  unendowed  with  brains  to  pluck  continually 
new  flowers  from  the  garden  of  allegory. 

Perhaps  it  was  precisely  the  increasing  restriction  of  free  thought  in  theo- 
logical matters  that  was  one  of  the  principal  reasons  why  struggling  minds 
threw  themselves  into  allegory,  where  a  field  of  uutrammeled  activity  was 
still  open  to  them. 

Among  the  admirers  and  imitators  of  Origen  may  be  reckoned  :  — 

In  the  third  century,  Hippolytus,  Bishop  of  Portus  Romanus  (§  312),  f  250  ; 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Pierius,  a  presbyter  of  the  same  city,  Theognostus 
6  e^riyr]T-fis,  president  of  the  school  there  (see  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  VII.  25,  32)  ; 
Methodius  of  Tyre,  who,  however,  did  not  agree  with  Origen  dogmatically 
(Photius,  Cod.,  234)  ;  Pamphilus,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Bishop  of  New 
Caesarea,  f  2G5  (Panegi/rlcus  in  Origenem,  ed.  Beugel,  1722),  cf.  J.  S.  Weickh- 
mann,  De  scliola  Origenis  sacra  ex  Gregorio  Thaumaturgo,  Vit.  1741.  Of 
none  of  these,  however,  are  any  proper  exegetical  writings  preserved. 

In  the  fourth  century,  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  the  liistorian,  f  340  (Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms  and  Isaiah,  in  Moutfaucou,  Coll.  nova  PP.  gr.,  p.  1706, 
I.,  II.,  beside  writings  on  biblical  chronology  and  geography,  which,  however, 
scarcely  show  any  need  of  returning  to  the  historic  interpretation)  ;  Hilary 
of  Pictavium,  f  368  (Commentary  on  the  Psalms  and  Matthew,  0pp.,  ed. 
Bened.,  P.  1693,  fol.)  ;  Tyrannius  Rufinus,  presbyter  at  Aquileia,  f  410 
(translation  of  many  homilies  of  Origen  on  the  O.  T.  and  of  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans). 

In  the  fifth  century  (?)  Pseudo-Theophilus  (Bishop  of  Antioch  in  the 
second  century),  Xf&ri  IV.  allegoriarum  in  IV.  evangella,  in  Latin.  An  in- 
complete work  on  Matthew,  in  Latin,  among  the  works  of  Chrysostom. 

514.  But  philosophizing  was  not  the  business  or  the  need  of 
all.  There  were  also  more  positive  minds  who  either,  sick  of 
the  ever  questioning  wisdom  of  the  world,  in  order  to  gain 
more  solid  ground  had  taken  refuge  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church, 
or,  with  genuine  Roman  conceptions  of  civil  law  and  household 
order,  heartily  hated  all  caprice,  particularly  in  still  more  im- 
portant matters.  For  them  the  Church  was  not  to  be  made 
an  academy  ;  Avhat  the  Portico  at  Athens  never  attained,  the 
hall  of  Solomon  Avas  to  give  them,  a  certainty  of  faith,  invio- 
lable either  by  external  criticism  or  by  inner  doubt.  But  for 
this  there  must  first  be  obtained  a  basis  which  should  have  its 
authority  in  itself,  independent  of  human  wit,  and  which  could 
at  the  same  time  serve  as  a  bulwark  against  every  invasion  of 
error.  In  place  of  philosophic  speculation  came  the  dogmatic 
principle. 

Q.  Septim.  Florens  Tertnllianus,  presbyter  at  Carthage  (f  223)  ;  died  a 
heretic  ;  father  of  the  Latin  orthodoxy  and  ecclesiastical  language,  a  born 
lawyer,  of  eccentric  mind  and  harsh  disposition,  an  ascetic  and  a  wit  ;  with 
affected  rhetoric  presenting  Christianity  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  contra- 
riety to  reason.  0pp.,  ed.'Semler,  Halle,  1770  f.,  6  vols.  8°  ;  ed.  F.  Oehler, 
L.  1S52  f.,  2  vols.  8°.  [Migne,  Par.  1844  ;  E.  tr.  in  Ante-Nicene  Library, 
Edinb.  4  vols.] 


638  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Irenseus,  an  Asiatic  and  Bishop  of  Lyons  (f  202),  a  pious,  zealous,  and 

narrow  man.  His  work  "EAsyxos  Kal  auarpovrj  ttjs  yl/evSoofvixov  yvwffeuis  is  iu 
"xeat  part  only  preserved  in  Latin.  Editions  by  Massiiet,  P.  1710,  t'ol.,  by 
IStieren,  L.  1849  ft".,  2  vols.  8°.  In  both  a  series  of  literary  and  historico-dog- 
inatic  appendices.  [Also  Harvey,  Cainb.  1857,  2  vols.  ;  E.  tr.  in  Ante- 
Niceue  Library,  Ediub.  1869,  2  vols.] 

These  two  (cf.  §  297  if.)  stand  at  the  head  of  the  first  anti-Gnostic,  then  in 
general  auti-pliilosophic  tendency.  Cf.  J.  G.  Rosenmuller,  De  theologice  chr. 
origine  (L.  1786),  p.  75  ff.  ;  idem,  Hist,  interpr.,  II  ;  Schrdckh,  Kirchengesch., 
111.  208  f.,  389  f.  ;  IX.  87  f.  ;  Eiclihorn,  BiU.,  I.  620  ;  Semler,  Antiquitates 
herrn.  ex  TertulUano,  Hal.  1765  ;  A.  Stieren,  Art.  Irenaeus,  iu  the  Encykl., 
II.  23  ;  idem,  De  Iren.  operis  fontihus  indole  et  doctrina,  1836.  [A.  Hauck, 
Tertullian's  Leben  u.  Schriften,  Erl.  1877.] 

515.  This  principle  was  the  authority  of  tradition.  The 
danger  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  which  might  possibly  grow 
out  of  the  current  method  of  Scripture  interpretation  was  very 
early  apprehended.  Even  before  the  time  of  Origen,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Gnostics,  individuals,  especially  in  the  West,  had 
warned  against  the  capriciousness  of  the  allegorical  method. 
They  sometimes  went  so  far  in  this  polemic  that  they  seemed 
to  wish  to  give  over  altogether  the  use  of  Scripture  in  theology, 
declaring  the  rule  of  faith,  as  handed  down  in  the  Church,  and 
especially  as  preserved  in  the  original  apostolic  churches,  to  be 
fully  sufficient  to  decide  all  disputes.  Yet  they  really  meant 
by  this  simply  that  interpretation  has  its  warrant,  it  not  its 
standard,  in  the  common  faith  of  the  church.  By  this  means 
the  need  of  stability,  which  the  prevalence  of  allegorical  expo- 
sition had  endangered,  seemed  sufficiently  met,  and  protected 
by  this  wall  from  error  on  their  own  part  or  that  of  others,  dog- 
matic theologians  could  now  without  fear  indulge  in  the  irre- 
sistible impulse  to  mystic  interpretation. 

In  any  case  the  avithority  appealed  to  is  a  concrete  one,  whether  a 
baptismal  confession  or  other  sanctioned  formula,  or  in  general  the  doctrine 
handed  down  by  direct  apostolic  succession  of  teachers,  especially  in  par- 
ticular churches  (propter  potiorem  principalitatem,  TertulL),  by  which  a  sort 
of  legal  prescription  was  obtained  against  heretics  —  especially  developed 
by  Tcrtuliian,  in  the  book  De  prcescriptionibus  adv.  hcereticos  (A.  Cres,  Les 
ide'es  de  Tert.  sur  la  tradition  eccL,  Str.  1855).  Cf.  Iren.,  III.  24,  1  :  Ubi 
ecclesia  ibi  et  spiritus  Dei,  et  ubi  spiritus  Dei  ibi  ecclesia  .  .  .  cujus  non  par- 
ticipant omnes  qui  non  currunt  ad  ecclesiam.  IV.  26,  5  :  Disrere  oportet 
veritatem  apud  quos  est  ea  quce  est  ab  apostolis  ecclesice  successio.  Cf.  III.  1,  2; 
4,2.  Tertull.,  Prfescr.,  xxxvi.;  Cont.  Marc,  IV.  5.  —  Kostlin,  in  the  Tub. 
Jalirb.,  1850,  I. 

Exegesis  was  not  thus  freed  from  allegory  ;  indeed  this,  as  well  as  every 
other  mode  of  proof,  was  doubtless  used  to  establish  the  church  doctrine. 
The  question  of  the  absolute  subordination  of  exegesis  to  the  regula  fidei 
has  been  discussed  among  moderns  since  Lessing  (§  289) ;  cf.  Sack,  Nitzsch, 
and  Liicke,  three  letters  on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  and  their  relation 
to  the  rule  of  faith  in  the  Protestant  and  in  the  ancient  churcli,  Bonn,  1827. 
Pieces  of  declamation  like  the  following  are  not  historical  evidence,  it  is  true 
(fidfs  tua  te  aalvmn  fadt,  non  exercitatio  scriptnrarum  ;  jides  in  regnln  pnsita 
est  habens  salutem  in  observatione  legis;  exercitatio  in  curiositate  consistit  habens 


DOGMATIC   METHOD  — AUTHORITY  OF   TRADITION.       539 

gloriam  solam  de  perit'm  studio.  .  .  .  Nihil  prqficit  congressio  scriptt.  nisi  ut  aut 
stomachi  quis  ineut  eversionem  aut  cerebri.  Tert.,  Prcescr.,  ch.  xiv.  f.),  yet  they 
reveal  a  tendency  which  coukl  not  possibly  lead  to  a  criticism  of  tradition  by 
Scripture.  Just  as  little  is  the  freedom  of  exegesis  secured  by  the  right, 
denied  to  the  heretics,  of  appealing  to  the  latter.  (Id.,  ibid.,  ch.  xvi.-xix.) 
Ergo  non  ad  SS.  provocandum  est  nee  in  his  constitiiendum  certamen  quibus  aut 
nulla  aut  incerta  victoria  est.  —  Sunt  enim  multa  verba  in  scripturis  divinis  quoe 
possunt  trahi  ad  eum  sensum  quein  sibi  unusquisque  sponte  prcesumsit  .  .  .  ideo 
oportet  ab  eo  intelligentiam  discere  scripturarum  qui  earn  a  majoribus  secundum 
veritatem  sibi  traditam  servat,  etc.    Recognit.,  X.  42. 

That  practice  developed  in  this  direction  is  undeniable.  In  controverting 
heretics,  the  Scriptures,  which  they  "  mutilated  and  wrested,"  could  be  of 
little  use.  (Iren.,  III.  2  ;  Tertull.,  I.  c.)  Although  it  was  attempted,  appeal 
was  made  by  preference  to  ecclesiastical  testimony.  Vincent  of  Lerinum 
(f  450),  Commonit.,  I.  2  :  Necesse  est,  propter  tantos  tarn  varii  erroris  anfractus, 
ut  propheticce  et  apostolicce  interpretationis  linea  secundum  ecclesiastici  et  catholici 
sensus  normam  dirigatur.  Ibid.,  ch.  iii.  :  Tenendum  quod  semper,  quod  ubique, 
quod  ab  omnibus  creditum  est. 

The  Gnostics,  it  is  true,  also  appealed,  to  establish  what  they  could  not 
justify  by  their  exegesis,  to  an  esoteric  apostolic  teaching.  (1  Tim.  vi.  20  ;  2 
Tim.  i.  14  ;  ii.  2.  Tert.,  Prcescr.,  ch.  xxv.)  But  the  Catholics  denied  that  any 
such  teaching  existing  outside  their  own  well-known  tradition  (Iren.,  III. 
3,1). 

516.  Then  came  a  period  in  which  the  Church,  free  from 
external  enemies,  had  leisure  and  opportunity,  and  hence  also 
the  desire,  to  give  her  doctrines  a  more  definite  and  scientific 
form,  in  which  consequently  all  other  interests  became  subordi- 
nate to  the  dogmatic.  In  proportion  as  the  church  doctrine 
became  more  defined  beyond  the  word  of  Scripture,  and  logic 
became  the  more  useful  instrument  of  theology,  exegesis  was 
oblio-ed  to  come  into  greater  and  often  admitted  dependence 
upon  dogmatics.  This  is  especially  manifest  in  works  upon 
doo-matics,  whether  with  or  without  reference  to  the  contro- 
versies of  tlie  day.  The  allegorical  method  might  be  used  or 
rejected  according  to  individual  conviction. 

The  latter  fact  is  most  clearly  illustrated  by  the  exegesis  of  the  Audians 
(Epiphan.,  Hcer.,  LXX. ;  Theodoret,  H.  E.,  IV.  10  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch., 
VI.  214  f.),  which  from  literalness  became  grossly  anthropomorpliic  ;  and 
in  the  controversies  on  eschatology,  especially  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh, 
on  which  point  the  Chiliasts  (e.  g.,  Nepos,  "^Keyxos  aW-nyopiarwu  ?)  and  most 
of  the  Latins  opposed  the  more  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  Alexandrians. 
Among  the  opponents  of  allegory  belong  also  the  authors  of  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  which  in  the  hierarchical  interest  held  fast  to  the  literal  inter- 
pretation of  the  Levitical  enactments  (Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  interpr.,  I.  117  ff.), 
and  the  Clementine  Homilies,  to  which  it  might  signify  the  disparagement 
of  the  O.  T.,  and  to  which,  therefore,  precisely  that  was  welcome  which  was 
abhorrent  to  Origen. 

It  may  be  shown,  for  the  rest,  that  decision  by  appeal  to  the  concrete 
authority  of  the  Church,  as  a  body  hierarchically  organized  for  this  purpose, 
was  adhered  to  more  strictly  in  the  West.  In  the  Greek  Church,  on  the 
other  hand.  Scripture  and  tradition  remained  rather  in  the  relation  of  equally 
immediate  sources  of  knowledge,  for  the  reason,  among  others,  that  the 
philosophic  spirit  was  not  so  completely  dead,  and  one  could  assume  and  dis- 


540  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

cover  their  agreement  without  feeling  obliged,  for  the  sake  of  greater 
certainty  and  clearness,  to  set  up  the  latter  as  the  indispensable  interpreter 
of  the  former.  The  current  doctrines  of  offenses  to  be  removed  by  allegor- 
ical inter2)retation,  and  of  the  validity  of  the  Law  only  thus  to  be  rescued, 
were  the  common  possession  of  both  chui'ches. 

It  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  great  dogmatic  theologians  of  that 
period  had  no  definite  hermeneutic  theory.  Their  good  sense  in  conflict 
with  prejiulice  and  tlie  taste  of  the  age  groped  about  in  search  of  a  middle 
way  between  the  TraxvTepoi  t^v  didyoiav  (the  literal  expositors)  and  the  &yav 
6ewpr]TiKol  (the  allegorizers),  Greg.  Naz.,  Horn.  XLII.  They  opposed  the 
former  because  they  surrendered  striking  dicta  prohantia,  and  called  them 
Judaizers,  and  the  latter  as  abettors  of  heresy.  The  true  sources  of  knowl- 
edge are  a\7i9eia  rov  evayyeXlou,  TrapdSoats  twv  a,iTocrT6\o)v,  owtAo'tijs  ttjs  iriaTews 
(Basil,  Cont.  Eunom.,  I.,  muV.),  but  the  history  is  abhorrent  et  inl  \f/i\6oy  arai- 
Ojxev  TWf  Trpay/xdraii'  ovk  ayadov  fiiov  Trapf'xeTai  'qjxlv  to,  unodelyfxara  (Greg.  Nys., 
Prooem.  in  Cant.),  and  the  Law  completely  avoii(l)e\i}s  el  nv  voo7to  irvevixaTiKcos 
(Cyril,  De  adorat.  in  Sp.,  I.  13).  Cf.  H.  Weiss,  Die  grossen  Kappadocier 
Basilius,  Gregor  v.  Naz.  und  Gregor  v.  Nysm  als  Exegeten,  Braunsb.  1872. 

Cf.  in  general  the  dogmatic  and  controversial  writings  of  Cyprian  of 
Carthage  (f  258.  0pp.,  ed.  Baluze,  P.  1726,  fob),  Athanasius  of  Alexandria 
(t  371.  0pp.,  ed.  Bened.,  P.  1G98,  3  vols.,  foL),  Basil  of  Ca;sarea  (f  379. 
0pp.,  ed.  Gamier,  P.  1721,  3  vols.,  fob),  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (f  391.  0pp., 
ed.  Toll.,  Yen.  1753,  2  vols.,  fol.  [the  Benedictine  ed.,  Par.  1778-1840  is  the 
best]),  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (f  394.  0pp.,  ed.  Fronton  le  Due,  P.  1638,  3  vols., 
fob),  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (f  444.  0pp.,  ed.  Aubert,  P.  1638,  7  vols.,  fob), 
Isidore  of  Pelusium  (f  449.  0pp.,  P.  1638,  fob),  and  many  others  ;  also  the 
following  section,  as  well  as  the  monographs  of  UUmann,  Greg.  v.  Nazianz 
d.  Theolog,  Darmst.  1825  [E.  tr.  by  G.  F.  Coxe,  1857  ;  Benoit,  St.  Gre'goire 
de  Naz.,  Par.  1877]  ;  Niemeyer,  on  Isidore,  1825  ;  Klose,  on  Basil,  1835; 
Rupp,  Gregors  d.  B.  v.  Nyssa  Leben  u.  Meinungen,  L.  1834;  Rettberg,  on 
Cyprian,  1831,  etc. 

517.  Both  methods,  the  dogmatic  and  the  allegoincal,  existed 
side  by  side,  and  in  consequence  a  peculiar  confusion  came  into 
works  devoted  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  While  many- 
gave  the  mystic  explanation  almost  in  jest,  and  wliat  had  been 
with  Origen  a  spiritual  necessity  descended  to  imitative  sub- 
tlety, others  attempted  to  lay  down  new  theories  respecting 
the  use  of  the  allegorical  interpretation,  partly  by  recognizing 
the  hidden  sense  only  in  certain  passages,  the  literal  everywhere, 
partly  by  aiming  to  limit  caprice  by  a  standing,  as  it  were 
lexical,  signification  of  the  different  figures,  partly  by  sub- 
jecting to  the  allegorical  treatment  only  those  passages  not 
immediately  applicable  for  dogmatic  and  ethical  purposes, 
partly,  finally,  by  striving  to  estimate  properly  the  continual 
typical  relationship  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
There  was  no  lack  of  excellent  directions  for  biblical  interpre- 
tation ;  unfortunately  those  who  gave  them  were  the  first  to 
violate  them. 

The  middle  way  sought,  between  bald  llteralness,  which  was  despised,  and 
allegorical  fantasticalness,  which  was  distrusted,  failed  of  being  found  be- 
cause interpreters  could  not  free  themselves  from  the  principle  of  a  mani- 
fold sense,  and  because  a  Christian  theological  meaning  for  every  word 


CHURCH  FATHERS.  541 

was  regarded  as  a  postulate  of  the  idea  of  Saci'ed  Scripture.  All  rules  by 
which  they  attempted  to  guide  themselves  were  themselves  arbitrary,  and 
had  so  Uttle  imier  necessity  that  in  practice  they  always  went  without  rides, 
in  order  not  to  appear  devoid  of  spirituality. 

Ephrem  Syrus,  president  of  a  theological  school  at  Edessa  (f  378.  0pp. 
syr.  gr.  et  lat.,  ed.  Assemani,  Rome,  1732,  6  vols.,  fol.  [A  Latin  translation 
by  Caillau,  Par.  1835,  8  vols.,  forming  a  part  of  the  Paires  Selecti]  ;  cf .  Ctes. 
a  Lengerke,  De  Ephremi  Syri  arte  hermeneutica,  Reg.  (1828)  1831  ;  Gaab, 
in  Paidus,  Mem.,  I.  65,  II.  136  ;  Is.  Gotz,  Via  et  ouvrages  d'  Ephrem,  Gen. 
1843 ;  P.  Picard,  Recherches  sur  S.  Ephrem,  Mont.  1866  ;  D.  Gerson,  Die 
Comment,  des  E.  im  Verhixlt.  zur  judischen  Exegese,  in  Frankel's  Zeitschr., 
1868),  the  first  Syrian  exegete  known  to  us,  whose  commentaries,  covering 
the  greater  part  of  the  O.  T.,  are  yet  said  to  have  come  down  to  us  only  in 
an  abridged  form.  Cf.  a  Syriac  biograjjliy  of  him  m  Uhlemann's  Syriac 
Grammar,  in  Hasse's  and  Grimm's  Chrestomathies  ;  in  general,  Fabricius, 
Bihl.  gr.,  V.  319  ;  Oudin,  Scriptt.,  1. 493  ;  Rodiger,  in  the  Halle  Encykl,  I.  35. 

Of  Athanasius  (§  516)  there  is  extant  a  commentary  on  the  Psalms,  ed. 
Antonelli,  Rome,  1746,  fol. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria  (f  392),  of  whose  exegetical  writings  only  one  has 
been  preserved,  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  in  Latin.  Jerome,  De  viris  ill.,  ch. 
cix.  Text  in  Gallaudi,  Bibl.  PP.,  VI.,  also  separately.  Col.  1531  ;  F.  Liicke, 
Qucestiones  et  vindicice  didymiance,  Gott.  1829  f.,  4  Pts.  ;  Guerike,  Schol.  Alex., 
II.  83  ff.  ;  Fabric,  Bihl.  gr.,  VIII.  351  ;  Von  Colin,  in  the  Halle  Encykl, 
L24. 

Ambrose,  first  a  soldier,  afterward  Bishop  of  Milan  (cZe  tribunalibus  ad 
sacerdotium  raptus  docere  vos  coepi  quod  ipse  non  dldici,  De  Oj/iciis,  I.  1.  f  398), 
wrote  on  the  Gosjjel  of  Luke  (in  verbis  ludens  in  sententiis  dormitans,  Jerome, 
Prolog,  in  homil.  Origen.  in  Luc),  and  many  smaller  works  on  the  O.  T.,  0pp., 
ed.  Bened.,  P.  1686,  2  vols.,  fol.  [Baunard,  Hist,  de  St.  Ambroise,  Par.  1871; 
Ebert,  Gesch.  d.  Lit.  des  Mittelalters  im  Abendlande,  L.  1874,  vol.  I.  p.  135  ff.] 

Sophroniiis  Eus.  Hieronymus  [Jerome]  (§§  32.3,  454),  monk  at  Jerusalem, 
etc.  (f  420),  a  tireless  copyist  and  compiler,  who  made  theological  author- 
ship his  business  from  the  first,  much  praised  by  later  writers,  but  by  no  one 
more  than  by  himself  ;  learned  as  were  none  of  his  contemporaries,  espe- 
cially in  the  sciences  auxiliary  to  exegesis,  but  ueitlier  intellectually  strong, 
independent,  nor  courageous.  He  has  excellent  preparatory  knowledge,  a 
hearty  contempt  for  unfamed  expositors,  and  blames  Origen  (whom  he  ad- 
mired and  translated)  because  liberis  allegories  spatiis  evagatus  ingenium  suum 
facit  ecdesice  sacramenta  {Comm.  in  Jesaj.,  V.,  prol.),  but  knows  himself  that 
singula  scripturcB  verba  singula  sacramenta  sunt  {Ad  Ps.  xci.),  and  therefore 
desires  to  rise  from  the  turpitudo  literce  ad  decorem  intelligentite  spiritalis  (Ad 
Amos  ii.).  His  hesitation,  now  for,  now  against  Origen,  is  not  to  be  referred 
to  a  divergence  in  exegetical  principles,  but  to  dogmatic  caution.  Commen- 
taries, especially  on  the  Prophets  and  the  N.  T.,  0pp.,  ed.  Tribbechovius, 
Frankf .  1688,  12  vols.  fol.  ;  ed.  Martianay,  P.  1693  &.,  5  vols.,  fol.  ;  ed.  Val- 
larsi,  Verona,  1734  ft'.,  11  vols.  4°  [Migiie,  Par.  1845]  ;  J.  W.  Baum,  Hie- 
ronymi  vita,  Arg.  1835  ;  J.  Clericus,  Qucestiones  Hieronymiance,  Amst.  1719  ; 
Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.,  XL  ;  Von  Colin,  in  the  Halle  Encykl.  For  other 
writings  see  §  454.  [A.  Thierry,  St.  Jerome,  P.  1867,  2  vols.,  3d  ed.  1876  ; 
Cutts,  St.  Jerome,  Lond.  1877.] 

Aurelius  Augustinus,  Bishop  of  Hippo  (f  430),  0pp.,  ed.  Bened.,  P.  1679  ff. 
11  vols,  fol.;  reprinted,  Basle,  1797 ft.,  18  vols.  4°  [also  P.  1836-1839, 11  vols. 
8°,  and  by  Migue,  P.  1841,  10  vols.  8°,  2d  ed.  1863,  11  vols.;  most  important 
works  translated  in  the  Augustinian  Library,  Edinb.  1872-1876,  15  vols.  8°; 
his  Confessions  translated  in  the  Library  of  the  Fathers,  Oxf.  1839-1855,  12 
vols.  8°].  In  this  edition,  vols.  III.-V.,  in  various  forms,  writings  on  Gene- 
sis, Psalms,  Job,  the  Gospels,  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians 


542  HISTOKY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

ami  the  first  of  John,  and  many  Sermones  on  particular  passages.  Cf.  H.  N. 
Chuisen,  Aur.  August.  S.S.  interpres,  B.  1827;  C.  F.  Schneegans,  Apprecia- 
tion de  St.  Aug.  d'apres  ses  travaux  sur  I'hermeneutique,  Str.  1848.  [Archb. 
Trench,  Essay  on  the  Merits  of  Augustine  as  an  Interpreter  of  Holy  Scripture, 
prefixed  to  his  Exposition  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  draivn  from  the  Writ- 
ings of  St.  Augustine,  Lond.  1850.]  His  exegetical  system,  the  rational  part 
of  which  is  still  worth  consideration,  and  wliich  demanded  plillological,  crit- 
ical, and  historical  knowledge  in  which  he  himself  was  wholly  deficient,  is 
laid  down  in  the  work  De  doctrina  Christiana,  IV.  Yet  (III.  2)  in  case  of  the 
slightest  uncertainty,  even  in  external  matters,  e.  g.,  quomodo  distinguendum 
aut  pronunciandum,  consulatur  regulajidei;  and  (III.  14)  quidquid  in  sermone 
divino  neque  ad  morum  honestatem  neque  ad  fidei  veritatem  referri  potest  figu- 
rate  dictum  est.  His  atteinpts  to  interpret  ad  literam  led  him,  in  this  respect 
also  to  a  certain  degree  the  standard-bearer  of  much  later  centuries,  to 
scliolastic  methods  and  subtleties.  On  the  whole,  his  exegesis  was  the  great 
man's  weak  point.  See  in  general  Ginzel,  Der  Geist  des  Augustinus,  Quar- 
talschr.,  1848,  IV.  ;  1849,  I.  ;  H.  A.  Naville,  S.  AugusVm,  Gen.  1872. 

The  "  seven  rules  "  of  Trychonius  (Liber  de  VII.  regulis,  Ven.  1772,  and 
freq.,  Bibl.  max.  PP.,  VI.  ;  cf .  Augustine,  De  doctr.  chr..  III.  30  ;  Semler,  De 
regulis  Trych.,  Hal.  1756  ;  Fliigge,  Gesch.  der  theol.  Wissensch.,  II.  .249)  are 
not  a  hermeneutical  theory,  but  remarks  upon  various  classes  of  passages 
which  present  special  difficulties  to  the  expositor,  without  value  or  comiec- 
tion.  Eucherius  Lugd.  (beginning  of  fifth  century),  Liher  formularum  spir- 
italis  intelligentice,  Rome,  1564,  is  only  a  collection  of  desultory  allegorical 
studies  in  the  form  of  a  vocabulary.  In  his  0pp.,  Basle,  1530,  fol.,  there  are 
also  commentaries  on  Genesis  and  the  four  books  of  the  Kings. 

In  Cyril's  works  (see  the  preceding  section)  are  commentaries  on  the 
Pentateuch,  the  Prophets,  and  John.  Others  on  Matthew,  Luke,  etc.,  frag- 
mentary, in  Mai,  Scriptt.  vett.  collectio  nova,  VIII.,  X. 

On  account  of  the  great  influence  which  he  exerted  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  we  may  also  mention  here  Pope  Gregory  I.,  the  Great,  about  two  cen- 
turies later  (0pp.,  ed.  Bened.,  P.  1705,  4  vols.,  fol.  Ven.  1768,  17  vols.  4°), 
whose  exegetical  works  on  Ezekiel,  the  Gospels,  1  Samuel,  Canticles,  but  es- 
pecially Moralium  in  I.  Job.  II.  XXX  V.  (often  separately,  e.  g.,  Basle,  1496, 
fol.)  were  the  great  model  of  mystic  exposition  for  the  subsequent  period  : 
in  voluminibus  Gregorii  quanta  mysteria  saci-avientorum  aperiantur  nemo  sapiens 
explicare  valebit  etiamsi  omnes  artus  ejus  vertantur  in  linguas,  Isid.  Hisp.,  De 
cedes,  scr.,  ch.  xxvii. 

518.  Over  against  all  tlie  tendencies  and  methods  described 
in  the  foregoing,  there  came  in  toward  the  end  of  this  period, 
in  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century,  another,  which  pro- 
ceeded from  the  theological  school  at  Antioeh,  at  that  time 
just  in  its  prime,  and  which  we  may  call  the  historic.  A 
happy  providence  had  brought  together  at  this  place  a  series 
of  thinking  men,  who  took  deliglit  in  critical  investigations 
and  had  an  open  eye  for  history,  and  who  combined  with  a 
certain  striving  after  freedom  from  the  fetters  of  the  authori- 
tative faith  a  hearty  aversion  from  the  fantastic  extravagances 
of  the  allegorize rs.  Exegesis,  their  favorite  pursuit,  they  car- 
ried on  upon  the  basis  of  philological  science,  and  with  a 
stricter  regard  to  the  chronological  relations  of  the  sacred 
■writers.  As  theologians  they  did  not  deny  the  deep-rooted 
connection   between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  will- 


HISTORICAL  EXPOSITION  — CIIRYSOSTOM.  543 

ingly  adhered  to  the  apostolic  principle  of  tj'pical  references, 
regarding  them,  however,  as  a  result  of  religious  reflection,  not 
of  the  historico-critical  study  of  the  text. 

F.  Miinter,  De  schola  antiochena,  1811,  German  in  Stiiuclliu's  Archiv,  Pt. 

I.  ;  Rosenniiiller,  III.  246  if. ;  Lengerke,  Ephrem,  p.  59  ff.  ;  H.  Hergen- 
rdtber,  Die  antioch.  Schule  und  ihre  Bedeutung  auf  exeg.  Gebiete,  Wiirzb. 
1866  ;  H.  Kihn,  Die  Bedeutung  der  ant.  Schule  auf  exeg.  Gebiete,  Weissb. 
1866.  [Diestel,  Geschichle  d.  A.  T.  in  d.  christl.  Kircke,  Jena,  1869,  p. 
126  ff.] 

The  most  famous  of  them  are  :  Eusebius  of  Emisa  (f  360)  (Jerome,  De 
viris  ill.,  ch.  xci.),  who  first  followed  historical  principles  in  the  classification 
of  actual  Messianic  prophecies. 

Diodore  of  Tarsus  (f  394),  y\/iKif  rcf  ypd/j-ixari  trpocrexoov,  ras  Bewpias  iKTpeir6fi- 
evos  (Socrates,  VI.  3  ;  cf.  Sozomen,  VIII.  2).  Suidas  edited  his  writings, 
among  them  a  herraeneutical  work  on  the  difference  between  aXXriyopla  and 
Oewpla,  the  latter  of  which,  in  the  sense  of  theological  exposition  of  Scripture, 
he  appears  to  have  commended.  Fragments  of  his  exegetical  writings  in 
Greek  and  Latin  Catence.     Cf.  Semisch,  in  Herzog's  Encyld. 

Theodore  of  Heraclea,  Titus  of  Bostra,  Dorotheus,  Lucian,  Ibas  of  Edessa 
(f  457),  finally  Cosmas,  in  the  sixth  century. 

Above  all,  Theodore,  Bishop  of  Mopsuestia  in  Cilicia  (f  429),  o  e'lij'yrjT^s. 
See  F.  L.  Siefl^ert,  Theodorus  Mopsuestenus,  V.  T.  sobrie  interpretandi  vindex, 
Keg.  1827;  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  De  Theodori  M.  commentariis  in  Psabnos  et  II. 
N.  T.,  Hal.  1836  ;  idem,  De  vita  et  scriptis  Th.  M.,  Hal.  1836  ;  R.  E.  Klener, 
Syniboke  lift,  ad  Theod.  M.  pertinentes,  Gott.  1836  ;  W.  C.  H.  toe  Water,  De 
Theodora  prophetarum  interprete,  Amst.  1837.  Cf .  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  II. 
cc. ;  Theodoret,  H.  E.,  V.  40  ;  Fabricius,  Bibl.  gr.,  IX.  153 ;  Schrockh, 
Kirchengesch.,  XV.  190  ff.  [Kihn,  Theod.  und  Junilius  als  Exegeten,  Frei- 
burg-im-Breisgau,  1880  ;  W.  Moller,  in  Schaff-Herzog  Encydop<xdia,  Art. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.~\  Printed,  0pp.,  ed.  A.  F.  V.  a  Wegnern,  B.  1834. 
Vol.  I.  contains  a  commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets,  which  alone  is  pre- 
served complete.  Commentaries  on  Genesis,  Psalms,  Job,  the  rest  of  the 
Prophets,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  the  Gospels,  and  Paul,  have  been  lost. 
Fragments  :  Commentariorum  in  N.  T.,  ed.  Fritzsche,  Tur.  1847  [A.  Mai, 
in  Script,  vet.  nov.  Coll.,  VL,  Rome,  1832,  and  Nov.  patr.  bibl.,  VII.,  Rome, 
1854]  ;  Fragmenta  syriaca  e  codd.  nitriacis,  ed.  Ed.  Sachau,  L.  1869  (on 
Genesis).  Others  in  Miinter,  Fragmenta  PP.  grcecorum,  1788,  and  in  the 
Catenc^.    There  is  quoted  also  a  work  De  allegoria  et  historia  contra  Originem 

II.  V.  J.  L.  Jacobi  (Berl.  Zeitschr.,  Aug.  1854)  also  ascribes  to  him  a  com- 
mentary on  the  smaller  epistles  of  Paul,  preserved  in  Latin  (which  D.  Pitra 
published  in  part  in  the  Spicil.  Solesmense,  I.  1852,  as  by  Hilary  of  Picta- 
vium)  and  has  published  the  rest  in  a  series  of  Dutch  programmes,  1855  ff. 
[H.  B.  Swete,  Theod.  episc.  Mopsuesteni  in  epp.  B.  Pauli  commentarii  j  the 
Latin  Version  loiih  the  Greek  Fragments,  Camb.  1880-1882,  2  vols.] 

The  Antiochians  were  perhaps  anticipated  by  Julius  Afrieanus,  presbyter 
at  Nicopolis  in  Palestine  (f  232),  of  whom  two  critical  fragments  on  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  I.  7)  and  the  History  of  Susanna  (Origen, 
0pp.,  I.  10,  Ruseus)  have  been  preserved.     Cf.  Rosenmiiller,  III.  157. 

The  attempt  of  the  older  Protestant  polemics  (Hody,  De  textibus  orig..  III. 
1)  to  prove  a  preference  on  the  part  of  the  Churcla  Fathers  in  general  for  the 
original  text  over  the  Greek  translation  is  based  upon  delusion  and  miscon- 
ception. 

519.  The  most  celebrated  of  them,  advancing  be^^ond  this 
point  of  view,  attempted  to  meet  especially  the  needs  of  the 


544  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

larger  circle  of  readers,  but  first  of  all  those  of  his  own 
hearers,  and  aimed  at  a  practical  exposition.  In  extended  rhe- 
torical discourses  or  homilies  he  set  forth  the  verbal  meaning 
with  constant  attention  to  the  course  of  thought,  and  connected 
therewith,  in  harmony  with  the  form  which  he  had  chosen,  the 
religious  and  moral  observations  which  were  founded  directly 
in  the  text.  Dogmatic  and  polemic  digressions  were  not  neces- 
sarily excluded,  but  were  never  made  the  principal  thing,  and 
the  more  or  less  frequently  inserted  allegorical  additions  appear 
rather  as  rhetorical  ornament  and  deference  to  custom  than  as 
something  necessary  to  the  expositor.  Certainly  the  Christian 
people  of  ancient  times  never  anywhere  enjoyed  richer  instruc- 
tion from  the  word  of  Scripture  than  when  it  came  to  them 
in  this  way  from  the  golden  mouth  of  a  preacher  genuinely 
accomplished  in  the  Bible. 

Joliii  Chrysostom,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  407)  (0pp.,  eel.  Bern, 
de  Montfaucou,  P.  1718  if.,  13  vols.,  fol.,  and  freq.  [reedited,  P.  1835-1840]). 
His  works  contain,  beside  many  single  ones  on  passages  of  the  O.  T.,  homilies 
on  the  whole  N.  T.,  Mark,  Luke,  and  the  Catholic  Epistles  excepted.  Cf. 
Montfaucon's  Vita  Chrysost.,  in  the  thirteenth  volume  of  his  edition ;  Fabricius, 
Bihl.  (jr.,  VII.  553  ;  Oudin,  I.  687  ff.  ;  Ranke,  in  the  Halle  Encykl,  I.  21  ; 
Neander,  Der  heilige  Chri/sostumus  und  die  Kirche  seiner  Zeit.,  B.  1827,  3d  ed. 
1848,  2  vols.  [E.  tr.  of  1st  vol.  by  J.  C.  Stapleton,  Lond.  1838]  ;  R.  Simon, 
p.  147  ;  Rosenmiiller,  III.  265  ;  Schrbckh,  Kirchengesch.,  X.,  especially 
p.  436  fP.;  G.  W.  Meyer,  De  Chrysost.  II.  ss.  interprete.  Nor.  1806,  Pt.  II.,  Erl. 
1815  ;  C.  Datt,  jS^.  Jean  Chrys.  comme  predicateur,  Str.  1837  ;  J.  Pettersson, 
Chrysostomus  homileta,  Lund.  1833.  [Riviere,  Chrysostom  comme  predicateur, 
Str.  1845  ;  Lutz,  Chrysostomus,  Tiib.  1846  ;  Perthes,  Life  of  Chrysostom, 
Boston,  1854  ;  W.  A.  W.  Stephens,  Life  and  Times  of  Chrysostom,  Lond.  1872, 
2d  ed.  1880  ;  C.  Burk,  Art.  Chrysostom,  in  Schaff-Herzog  Encycl.'\ 

The  necessity,  more  instinctive  than  scientific,  of  not  giving  loose  rein  to 
allegory,  leads  him  to  the  theory  (just  now  much  in  favor)  of  prophecy 
entering  into  the  Scriptures  piecemeal.  On  Ps.  xlvi.:  Ta  fjiiv  is  6i/)?)Tat 
iKKy]iTriov,  to.  Se  kirevavrias  toIs  Keij-aivois,  ra  Se  kolto,  dnrA^v  SkSoxvi',  to.  re  alaBrjTdt, 
(the  actual  histoi'v)  voovvres,  koI  ra  votjtoi.  (the  typical  reference)  e/cSexo/^fo'- 
On  Ps.  cix.;  Kal  yap  ouToos  irpo(pr}Telas  Tp6iTos  eVrli',  on  rci  jjikv  irpooiinia  els  erepov 
Toi  Se  AeiirS/iieva  (Is  6.\\ov  \ey6/u.€va.  4(Tti.  Kal  y&p  tovto  iTpo<p7)Teias  eiSos  /ueTo|w 
StaKSTTTeiv  Kal  laropiav  Tivdi,  ifi^dWuv  Kal  fj-era  ravra  SieleAfie?^  irdXtv  iirl  ret 
irp6T(pa. 

520.  This  happy  combination  of  sober  historic  spirit  with 
sound  practical  sense  under  more  favorable  circumstances  must 
have  had  the  most  salutaiy  influence  upon  the  progress  of  bib- 
lical study  and  upon  the  relation  of  the  Scriptures  to  theolog- 
ical science  in  general.  And  all  the  more  since  the  distinction 
between  learned  and  popular  exegesis  at  that  time  was  not 
so  great  as  it  usually  is  in  our  day.  True,  custom,  training, 
prejudice,  and  often  also  the  desire  of  literary  fame,  prevented 
a  strict  and  exclusive  adherence  to  the  better  principles,  but 
the  way  had  been  discovered,  and  could  be  followed  until  it 
should  lead  to  complete  freedom  from  all  restraints  hostile  to 


DECLINE   OF  THE  SCIENCE.  545 

sound  science.  Single  commentaries  of  rich  brevity  and  sound 
sense  already  made  it  evident  that  the  problem  had  been 
attacked,  and  gave  assurance  of  the  good  vs^ill  to  solve  it. 

Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus  in  Syria  (f  450).  0pp.,  eel.  J.  L.  Schulze 
and  J.  A.  Nosselt,  Halle,  17G9  fP.,  10  vols.  [Migiie,  Par.  1859-1860,  5  vols.] 
Commentaries  and  scattered  notes  on  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  the 
Prophets,  several  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.,  still  much  mingled  with 
allegory.  We  mention  this  exegete  here  on  account  of  his  excellent  com- 
mentary on  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Cf.  R.  Simon,  p.  314;  Yahvichxs,,  Bihl.  gr., 
VII.  430  ;  Oudin,  Scriptt.,  I.  1051  ;  Schrockh,  Kirchengesch.,  XVIII.  355  ; 
Rosenmiiller,  IV.  35  ;^  J.  F.  Richter,  De  Theodoreto  epp.  paid,  interprete, 
L.  1822  ;  E.  Binder,  Etudes  sur  Theodoret,  Gen.  1844.  In  the  Halle  edition, 
Vol.  I.,  J.  L.  Schulze,  De  vita  et  scriptis  Theod.,  and  Vol.  X.,  Garnier,  Diss, 
de  hist,  et  II.  Theod.  [lloos,  De  Theodoreto  Clementis  et  Eusehii  compilatore, 
Halle,  1883  ;  A.  Bertram,  Theodoreti  episcopi  Cyrensis,  doctrina  christologica, 
Hildesh.  1883.] 

Here  may  be  placed  also  the  commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  printed 
among  the  works  of  Ambrose  (also  separately.  Col.  1530),  which  some  have 
ascribed  to  the  Roman  deacon  Hilarius  (c.  380)  ;  but  see  on  the  contrary 
Herzog,  in  his  EncyHopddie,  Art.  Ambrosiaster  ;  it  will  probably  have  to  re- 
main under  this  conventional  name.  To  the  same  Hilarius  is  also  ascribed 
the  Qucestiones  in  V.  et  N.  T.  preserved  under  the  name  of  Augustine. 

521.  Unfortunately  this  tendency  was  able  neitlier  to  win 
general  approval  nor  to  maintain  itself  long  in  the  Church. 
Not  only  did  it  oppose  itself  in  vain  to  the  taste  of  the  time, 
which  scornfully  taunted  it  with  the  insipidness  and  triviality 
of  its  exegetical  results,  it  also  in  many  cases  came  into  conflict 
with  traditional  dogmatic  notions.  In  the  West  it  found  no 
acceptance  except  with  here  and  there  one,  and  perhaps  among 
the  decried  Pelagians,  and  even  in  the  East  it  was  soon  looked 
upon  with  suspicion  by  the  stricter  theologians,  along  with  the 
orthodoxy  of  its  advocates.  Its  inability  to  win  its  way,  even 
when  advocated  by  gifted  minds,  foreboded  the  decline  of 
science.  After  flourishing  for  a  short  century  this  school  had 
no  more  pupils,  and  a  century  later  still  a  pi^niy  generation 
pronounced  the  anathema  upon  those  which  were  already  almost 
forgotten. 

The  Antiochians  gave  special  offense  by  preferring  the  Hebrew  text  to 
the  LXX.,  regardhig  Canticles  as  an  erotic  poem,  saying  little  of  the 
■KvevfiaTM^  Siriyi)(Tts,  even  practicing  only  a  humilis  et  demissa  interpretatio 
(«'.  e.,  historico-literal),  and  by  diminishing  the  number  of  proper  Messianic 
projjhecies,  especially  in  the  Psalms  (Ernesti,  0pp.  theoL,  ed.  2,  p.  445). 
Doubtless  also  because  they  paid  no  homage  to  the  imitators  of  Origen,  that 
is  to  say,  to  the  great  mass  of  exegetes  ;  Leont.  Byz.,  De  sectis  (see  §  320): 
Hie  scelestus  (^Tkeodorus)  in  omni  prava  interpretatione  SS.  lahores  sanctorum 
doctorum  qui  in  vis  laborarunt  nunquam  irridere  et  illudere  desinebat.  Whoever 
disparages  the  exegetes  easily  seems  to  them  a  blasphemer  of  the  word  of 
God.     Experto  credite. 

Theodore,  Theodoret,  and  some  others,  were  condemned  at  the  Council  of 
Constantinople  in  533  (at  the  same  time  with  Origen,  their  opponent) ;  their 
exegesis,  however,  was  not  the  only  cause. 
35 


546  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Of  Pelagiiis,  the  celebrated  British  monk  and  opponent  of  Augnstine 
(f  420),  there  is  extant  a  commentary  on  the  Panhne  Epistles  (  0;j/3. //ieron., 
ed.  Mart.  V.  ;  ed.  Vail.  XI.).  The  present  text,  though  certainly  still  Pela- 
gian here  and  there,  probably  went  through  purifying  hands  in  ancient  times. 
Cassiod.,  De  div.  lectt.,  ch.  viii. :  Epistolam  ad  Rom.  qua  potui  curiositale  purgavi, 
reliquas  vobis  emendandas  reliqui. 

His  follower  Julian,  Bishop  of  Eclanum,  in  Apulia,  also  busied  himself  vnih 
scriptural  interpretation  ;  considerable  fragments  are  preserved  in  Augus- 
tine's incomplete  work,  Cont.  Jul.     Cf.  Rosenmiiller,  III.  557  fP. 

522.  Even  before  the  Cluircli  in  this  sentence  bad  condemned 
her  own  science,  the  source  had  dried  up  whence  it  might  have 
been  still  further  enriched.  And  here  we  enter  upon  a  new 
stage  of  tliis  history.  Through  a  series  of  troubled  centuries, 
during  which  the  genius  of  Christianity  was  preparing  its 
blessings  for  mankind  by  a  quieter  way  than  that  of  literature, 
there  was  no  longer  any  thought  of  independent  and  original 
production,  either  in  the  domain  of  theology  in  general,  or  in 
that  of  exegesis  in  particular.  Ruled  by  the  desire,  now 
become  a  necessity,  of  being  regarded  as  orthodox,  and  soon  no 
longer  having  any  encouragement  from  the  common  people, 
only  a  few  still  took  the  trouble,  by  drawing  from  the  riches 
of  tlie  Fathers,  to  make  themselves  familiar  with  the  Bible, 
and  Scripture  interpretation  was  engaged  in  rather  as  a  kind 
of  mental  practice  than  for  scientific  puiposes. 

Here  properly  comes  Jerome,  with  his  only  too  faithfully  followed  example. 
Whether  it  be  learning  or  polymathy,  reading  or  mental  poverty,  he  makes 
no  secret  of  the  fact  that  his  exegetical  writings  are  mostly  others'  work,  to 
which  he  himself  has  only  given  the  form,  at  the  most  bestov/ing  upon  the 
dogmatic  coloring  a  greater  degree  of  prudence.  He  was  to  the  Latiu 
Church  as  an  exegete  what  Cicero,  whom  he  likes  to  quote,  was  to  the 
Romans  of  his  day  as  a  philosopher,  a  porter  and  herald  of  Greek  science. 
Adv.  Rufin.,  I.  {ppp.,  II.  137)  :  Commentarii  quid  operis  habent?  Alterius 
dicta  edisserunt  .  .  .  multorum  sententias  replicant  et  dicunt ;  hunc  locum  quidam 
sic  edisserunt  alii  sic  interpretantur  .  .  .  ut  prudens  lector,  quum  diversas  expla- 
nationes  legerit,  judicet  quid  verius  sit,  etc.  Procem.  in  Gal.  :  Legi  hcec  omnia 
(Greek  commentaries)  et  in  ynente  mea  plurima  coacervans  accito  notario  vel  mea 
vel  aliena  dictavi,  etc.  Procem.  in  Eph.  .  .  .  ut  studiosus  lector  agnoscat  hoc 
opus  vel  alienum  esse  vel  nostrum. 

Cassiodorus  (§  328),  De  institut.  divin.  litt.,  gives  the  list  of  the  Fathers 
to  be  used,  which  showed  a  strong  tendency  in  the  course  of  the  centuries 
not  to  mcrease,  as  with  our  modern  writers  of  catenfe  and  compilers,  but  to 
diminish.  Cf.  §  526.  Notker  Balbulus,  Bishop  of  Luttich  (f  912),  De  inter- 
pretibus  SS.,  or  De  viris  ill.  (in  Pezius,  Tkesaur.,  I.,  and  Gallandi,  Bibl., 
XIIL),  ch.  iv.  :  In  Matthceo  Hieronymus  tibi  sufficiat,  in  Marco  pedissequo 
Matthcei  Beda  pedissequus  Hieronymi.  From  the  same  spirit  springs  the 
verse  :  Si  Augustinus  adest  sujficit  ipse  tibi. 

523.  The  latter  would  not  have  been  a  bad  thing  in  itself  if 
readers  and  teachei^s  had  been  guided  by  sensible  rules.  But 
never  did  caprice  and  fancy  trifle  with  the  Scriptures  more 
wantonly.  The  people  either  no  longer  obtained  anything  at 
all  from  them,  or  only  the  remains  of  a  science  altogether  igno- 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES.  547 

rant  of  its  own  aim  or  method.  The  historical  foundation  of 
the  doctrinal  portions  of  the  Bible  was  corrupted  throughout 
by  apocryphal  additions,  and  was  regarded  as  edifying  solely  "' 
on  account  of  these  ;  the  purely  didactic  portions  were  wholly 
neglected  and  unknown  to  the  congregations ;  and  as  in  gen- 
eral only  in  and  for  the  cloisters  could  anything  like  Christian 
theology  exist,  so  what  was  called,  in  distinction  from  these, 
the  world,  could  neither  exert  any  influence  upon  these  matters, 
nor  understand  anything  of  them.  It  was  not  yet  necessary  to 
forbid  the  reading  of  Bible  at  a  time  when  barbarism  still 
needed  severe  mental  discipline  before  it  could  outstrip  the 
clergy  in  Christian  knowledge,  and  when  Christianity  was  in 
the  way  of  becoming  a  monastic  ordei",  provided  such  had  been 
its  destiny. 

Cf.  §§  329,  459  ff. — The  interesting  specimens  of  meclifevcil  pulpit  elo- 
quence which  have  been  published  in  modern  times  belong  to  a  later  period 
(twelfth  and  following  centuries),  and,  moreover,  are  mostly  of  the  mystic 
tendency,  which  we  are  by  no  means  to  think  of  as  the  most  prevalent.  We 
speak  of  a  mystic  tendency  here,  however,  ui  the  sense  of  §  535. 

524.  Through  this  whole  period,  therefore,  there  is  nothing 
to  be  said  of  dilTerent  schools  in  the  history  of  exegesis.  We 
have  to  do  only  with  different  methods  of  repeating,  in  ever 
new  form,  the  results  of  earlier  ages.  The  business  was  car- 
ried on  almost  as  if  the  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  were 
a  long  lost  miraculous  gift.  Naturally  also,  there  is  no  prog- 
ress to  be  recognized  in  the  science,  so  that  it  would  be  of  any 
advantage  to  hold  strictly  to  the  chronological  order.  The 
methods  of  procedure  described  in  the  following  are  in  part 
contemporaneous.  Only  in  case  the  design  were  to  write  a 
proper  literary  history  would  it  be  necessary  to  observe  the 
order,  inasmuch  as  every  expositor,  often  even  a  comparatively 
insignifica)it  one,  might  serve  his  successor  as  a  source,  and  the 
latest  and  nearest  were  sometimes  the  very  first  to  be  used. 

There  is  something  in  its  way  touching  in  the  fact  that  each  commenta- 
tor, venerated,  used,  copied  from,  and  looked  up  to  as  an  oracle  by  succeed- 
ing generations,  had  as  a  rule  begun,  in  complete  mental  poverty,  by  placing 
himself  in  the  same  relation  to  his  predecessors.  So  it  was  in  reality  the 
oldest  Latin  Fathers  whose  exegetical  works  were  extant,  Augustine,  Am- 
brose, Jerome  (through  the  last,  but  mostly  unknown  to  them,  Origen),  be- 
side Gregory  and  Isidore,  whose  ideas  or  conceits  were  continually  being 
brought  out  again,  often  under  new  names.  For  whoever  should  take  the 
trouble  to  prepare  an  exegetical  concordance  for  that  period  would  probably 
find  again  in  those  writers  the  most  of  what,  from  the  ninth  century  on,  was 
borrowed  more  directly  and  easily  from  Hrabanus,  Alcuin,  Bede,  and  others. 

525.  A  convenient  framework  was  offered  by  the  principle, 
which  had  gradually  become  fixed,  of  the  fourfold  sense  of 
Scripture.       This  principle,  which  had  gained  an  authority 


548  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

which  no  one  dared  or  desired  to  attack,  and  which  could  only 
be  limited  by  still  greater  extravagance,  was  at  the  same  time 
the  tyrant  of  science  and  the  last  asylum  of  mental  freedom. 
At  a  time  when  he  who  loved  peace  and  quiet  did  better  to 
study  the  Fathers  than  the  Scriptures,  and  when  it  had  to 
be  commanded  by  the  temporal  power  that  the  clergy  should 
understand  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  natural  impulse  of  the 
human  mind  to  action,  in  the  realm  of  religious  knowledge  at 
least,  could  still  be  satisfied  by  the  practice  of  allegorical  trif- 
ling. Hence  it  everywhere  came  into  the  Church  again  where- 
ever  the  fetters  of  intellectual  restraint  tended  to  become  too 
oppressive  ;  everywhere,  also,  it  was  immediately  abandoned, 
as  the  poorest  kind  of  liberty,  as  soon  as  a  better  was  to  be 
had. 

Gregory  the  Great  still  holds  to  the  Origenistic  canon  of  a  threefold 
sense :  Prcef.  in  Job. :  Sciendum  est  quod  qucedam  historica  expositione  transcur- 
rimus  et  per  allegoriam  qucedam  typica  investigatione  perscrutamur,  qucedam  per 
sola  ynoralitatis  instrumenta  discutimus,  nonnulla  autem  per  cuncta  simul  sollicV' 
tius  exquirentes  tripUciter  indagamus.  Primum  fundamentum  historice  ponimus, 
deinde  per  significationem  typicam  in  arcem  Jidei  fabricam  mentis  erigimus,  ad 
extremum  per  moralitatis  gratiam  cedijicium  colore  vestimus. 

But  Eucherius  (§  517)  already  mentions  the  classification  of  a  fourfold 
sense,  and  this  view  gradually  obtained  general  recognition.     A  distinction 
was  made  in  the  so-called  mystical  sense  between  the  reference  to  redemp- 
tion as  it  had  already  appeared  {sensus  allegoricus  in  the  narrower  meaning) 
and  that  to  future  matters  and  revelations  (setisus  anagogicus).     By  many 
ingenious,  fanciful,  and  absurd  comparisons,  figures,  and  arguments,  exegetes 
sought  to  prove  the  necessity  and  naturalness  of  the  number  four,  and  to  ex- 
plain their  meaning.     Well-known  is  the  mnemonic  verse  :  — 
Litera  gesta  docet,  quid  credas  allegoria, 
Morcdis  quid  agas,  quo  tendas  anagogia. 
The  methods  described  in  the  following  run  uito  one  another  in  many  points, 
and  no  strict  classification  of  the  different  commentaries  upon  this  basis  is 
possible. 

526.  The  difficulty  of  procuring  the  ancient  books,  togetherj 
with  disinclination  to  the  labor  of  reading  them,  led  to  the 
practice  of  placing  them  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  and  monks, 
who  had  become  poorer  in  intellect  than  in  worldly  goods,  by 
means  of  extracts.  Abbots  and  bishops  were  able  in  this  way 
to  win  favor  with  their  subordinates.  Also,  much  which  to 
the  earlier  writers  had  been  a  necessary  preliminary  labor,  or 
to  which  they  had  first  been  obliged  to  give  toilsome  attention, 
was  now  regarded  as  sufficiently  vouched  for  by  their  names, 
and  could  be  presented  in  shorter  and  more  categorical  form. 
Examples  of  this  method  of  procedure  occur  even  in  the  early 
Greek  Church.  It  was  practiced  throughout  the  Middle  Ages 
upon  certain  especially  favored  Fathers,  particularly  not  in  the 
form  of  proper  commentaries,  abridged,  but  in  that  of  exegeti- 
cal  anthologies  adapted  from  the  complete  works  of  a  great 
church  light. 


THE   MIDDLE  AGES  —  COMPILATIONS.  549 

Cassiodorus,  on  the  Psalms,  also  Complexiones  in  Epp.  Ada  et  Apoc.  (ed. 
Maffei,  Flor.  1721),  principally  from  Augustine.  From  the  same  source, 
though  with  the  aid  of  some  others,  even  of  Pelagius,  came  the  commentary 
of  Primasius,  Bishop  of  Adrumetum  (f  c.  550),  on  the  Paulme  Epistles,  Col. 
1538  and  freq.  A  collection  of  extracts  from  the  writings  of  Augustine, 
upon  the  Pauline  Epistles,  is  to  be  found  in  tlie  works  of  Bede  (§  527) ;  in 
the  judgment  of  scholars,  however,  it  does  not  belong  to  him,  but  to  Florus 
Magister,  principal  of  the  cathedral  school  at  Lyons  (9th  cent.)  :  In  aposto- 
lum  qucecunque  in  opp.  S.  Aug.  exposita  inveni  cuncta  per  ordinem  in  unum 
colligens  transcribere  curavi.  I  have,  in  MS.,  a  similar  work  under  the  name 
of  Bede  on  Galatians  —  Hebrews  (appellatur  liber  Jlorum  ex  merito  sme  pul- 
critudinis).  An  epitome  of  Augustine' s  work  on  the  Psalms  was  written 
(c.  450)  by  Prosper  Aquitanus  (Opp.,  P.  1711). 

From  the  works  of  Gregory,  scattered  Explanationes  in  ohsc.  loca  utriusque 
test,  were  collected  by  Paterius,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  in  the  seventh  century, 
and  by  the  monk  Alulf,  of  Tournay,  in  the  eleventh,  his  Gregoriale  s.  expo- 
sitio  V.  et  N.  T.  Both  in  Opp.  Greg.,  IV.  Odo  of  Clugny  (10th  cent.)  epit- 
omized liis  Moralia  in  Job.  ;  P.  1617. 

Of  John  of  Damascus  (f  754.  Opp.,  ed.  Le  Quien,  P.  1712,  2  vols.,  fol.) 
there  are  extant  eK\oyal  from  Chrysostom  on  the  Pauline  Ejjistles.  [F.  J, 
H.  Grundlelmer,  Joh.  Damascenus,  Utrecht,  1876  ;  Jos.  Langen,  Joh.  v.  Da- 
mascus, Gotha,  1879  ;  J.  H.  Lupton,  St.  John  of  Damascus,  Lond.  1882.] 

527.  But  such  works  more  usually  proceeded  by  the  method 
of  proper  coui[)ilcitiou.  That  is  to  say,  several  writers  were 
drawn  from  at  the  same  time,  one  being  made  the  basis,  and 
the  gaps  being  covered,  as  it  were,  by  the  aid  of  others,  some- 
times without  bringing  them  into  accord.  This  proceeding 
arose  from  the  same  causes  as  that  already  described,  and  had 
for  its  object  to  collect  the  scattered  treasures  of  science  into 
one  place.  True,  the  study  of  the  ancient  literature  was 
thereby  made  dispensable,  and  so  one  more  means  of  education 
withdrawn  from  the  already  declining  taste  and  energy  of  the 
time.  The  value  of  such  works  is  naturally  determined  by  the 
choice  of  sources  from  which  they  were  drawn  ;  but  this  often 
depended  upon  chance  and  opportunity,  and  can  hardly  be 
taken  as  the  measure  of  the  merit  of  the  author. 

Examples,  the  better  known  among  many  :  Andreas  of  Csesarea  in  Cappa- 
docia,  on  the  Apocalypse  (c.  500),  ed.  Sylburg,  1596  and  freq.  ;  afterward 
epitomized,  when  it  is  not  known,  by  a  certain  Aretas,  and  often  printed 
with  CEcumenius  (§  531).  On  Aretas  see  Delitzsch,  in  the  Zeitxchr.fiir  luth. 
TheoL,  1863, 1.  [Rettig,  Die  Zeugnisse  des  Andreas  mid  Arethas,  in  the  Studien 
u.  Kritiken,  1831,  p.  734  if.  ;  Prof.  Dickson,  Art.  Arethas,  in  Smith  and  Wace, 
Diet,  of  Chr.  Biography,  I.  The  Greek  text  of  Arethas  is  presented  most 
fully  by  Cramer,  in  his  Catence  GrcBC.  Patrum  in  N.  T.,  Oxf.  1840.]  In 
the  sixth  century,  Procopius  of  Gaza,  on  a  great  part  of  the  O.  T.,  of  which 
only  Kings  and  Chronicles  have  been  printed,  in  Greek,  ed.  J.  Meurs,  Leyd. 
1620  ;  the  preceding  books  in  Latin,  ed.  C.  Clauser,  Tig.  1555.  J.  C.  G. 
Ernesti,  De  Procopii  G.  comm.  ineditis,  L.  1785.  Olympiodorus  of  Alex- 
andria, c.  650,  on  Ecclesiastes,  Job,  and  Jeremiah,  printed  in  Catence  and 
larger  collections. 

Isidore  of  Seville  (f  636),  Allegor.  S.  S.  V.  et  N.  T. ;  Qucestiones  de  V.  et 
N.  T.,  and  several  other  works.  Opp.,  ed.  Areval.,  Rome,  1707  ff.,  7  vols. 
4°.     [Reprinted  in  Migne,  Patrolog.  Lat.,  LXXXI.-LXXXIIl.] 


550  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Beda  Venerabilis  (f  735),  an  Anglo-Saxon  monk,  on  many  books  of  the 
O.  T.  and  the  entire  N.  T.  :  Scripturi  maxime  quce  in  PP.  exemplis  inveni- 
mus  hinc  inde  collecta  ponere  curabimus  sed  et  nonnulla  propria  ubi  opportunum 
videbitur  interponemus  (Prol.  in  Marc).  He  introduced  the  custom  seldom 
observed  by  copyists  of  noting  the  source  in  the  margin.  0pp.,  Col.  1688, 
8  vols.  fol.  [Giles,  London,  1843,  12  vols.  8°  ;  Patrol.  Cursus,  Par.  1850, 
XC.-XCV.  ;  historical  works,  Stevenson,  1838.]  H.  Gehle,  De  Bedce  Ven. 
vita  et  scriptis,  Leyd.  1838  ;  A.  Sahler,  Essai  sur  Bede  le  Venerable,  Str.  1830  ; 
Weiss,  in  the  Freib.  Zeitschr.,  XVIII.  295.  [K.  Werner,  Beda  d.  EhrwUr- 
dige,  Vienna,  1875.] 

Claudius  of  Turin  and  Sedulius,  a  Scotchman,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nuith  century,  on  Paul  and  other  books  ;  of  the  first  only  Galatians  pre- 
served (epistolam  ex  tractatibus  bb.  Aug.  et  Hieron.  permixtis  procuravi  ordinare 
sententiis).  See  Bibl.  PP.  max.,  VI.,  XIV.  Atto  of  Vercelli  (f  900),  on 
the  same,  mostly  from  Jerome.  0pp.,  Verc.  1768.  So  also  Lanfranc,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  (f  1089),  0pp.,  D'Achery,  P.  1646. 

Photius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  890),  was  also  a  learned,  judicious, 
and  industrious  compiler,  who,  though  he  left  no  exegetical  works,  investi- 
gated many  biblical  questions  in  sejiarate  essays  {Qucestiones,  the  so-called 
Amphilochia,  see  Hergenrcither,  in  the  Tub.  Quartalschr.,  1858,  II.),  mostly 
after  ancient  fathers,  and  rather  in  the  scholastic  than  in  the  mystic  style. 

528.  Particularly  active  in  this  direction  was  the  century  in 
which  Charlemagne  sowed  the  seeds  of  a  neAv  intellectual  life, 
or  rather  roused  a  new  literary  activity,  for  which,  however, 
he  could  furnish  neither  the  material  nor  the  means.  He  cer- 
tainly wished  to  benefit  his  age,  and  had  a  general  idea  of 
what  was  lacking  in  it  and  himself  ;  he  patronized  and  ele- 
vated tliose  who  had  a  tinge  of  knowledge,  and  bade  others 
imitate  them.  But  laws  do  not  create  an  intellectual  want, 
and  the  ti'ee  which  he  planted  had  no  root.  He  liimself  was 
too  much  distracted  by  worldly  cares,  and  his  lifetime  came 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  development  of  hierarchical  domi- 
nation and  feudalism,  which  at  first  only  paralyzed  all  the 
forces  and  hopes  of  society,  and  were  not  to  call  out  a  reaction 
till  long  after.  Besides,  he  had  no  successor,  who,  like  him- 
self, stood  in  advance  of  his  century. 

Alcuin  (t  804),  the  leader  of  the  Carlovingian  century,  on  Genesis,  Psalms, 
Canticles,  John,  and  some  of  the  Epistles  {0pp.,  ed.  Froben,  Ratisb.  1777,  2 
vols.,  fob).  Magis  Patrum  sensibus  uteris  et  verbis,  quam  mece  quidpiam  prcesum- 
tioni  committens,  cautissimo  stylo  providens  ne  quid  contrarium  SS.  Patrum  sensi- 
bus ponerem  {Prolog,  ad  Gislam).  Cf.  Lorentz,  Leben  Alcuins,  1829  [trans- 
lated into  English  by  Slee]  ;  Niemeyer,  in  the  Halle  Encykl.,  I.  2  ;  C.  L.  Tuef- 
ferd,  Essai  sur  Ale,  Str.  18.30.  [Momiier,  Alcuin  et  Charlemagne,  2d  ed.  P. 
1863  ;  K.Werner,  Alcuin  und  sein  Jahrhundert,  Paderb.  1876  ;  A.  Ebert,  ^W^'. 
Geschichte  der  Literatur  des  Mittelalters  im  Abendlande,  L.  1880,  II.,  p.  12  ff.] 

Paulus  Warnefried,  a  deacon  at  Aquileia  ;  an  explanation  of  the  ordinary 
pericopes  (a  Postilla  in  the  ancient  sense,  i.  e.,  post  ilia  textus  verba  legendum), 
a  compilation  ordered  by  the  emperor  himself.  A  similar  Postilla  by  Sma- 
ragdus  of  Verdun  (f  820),  Arg.  1536. 

Haymo  of  Halberstadt  (f  853),  on  the  Psalms,  Isaiah,  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets, Canticles,  and  Apocalypse,  Col.  1529  ft.,  separately. 

Hrabanus  Maurus,  Archbishop  of  Mayence  (f  856),  is  said  to  have  been 


THE   MIDDLE  AGES  —  GLOSSES.  551 

the  first  to  comment  upon  the  whole  Bible  (on  Walafrid  see  the  following 
section);  but  in  his  0pp.,  ed.  Colvener,  Col.  1627,  6  vols.,  fol.  [reprinted  in 
Migne,  vols.  C  VII.-CXII.],  the  O.  T.  is  not  printed  entire,  and  of  the  N.  T. 
only  Matthew  and  Paul  ;  in  part  from  Greek  sources,  but  from  miore  numer- 
ous Latin  ones,  quorum  lectioni  intentus  in  schedulis  ea  mandare  curavi  quce  ab 
iis  exposita  sunt  vel  ipsis  eorum  syllahis  vel  certe  meis  breviandi  causa  sermoni- 
bus  (Prol.  ad  Matth.).  Also  Allegorice  in  univ.  SS.,  an  alphabetical  index  of 
significant  figurative  expressions.  [Kunstmann,  Hrabanus  Maurus,  Mayence, 
1841  ;  Spingler,  Rabanus  Maur.,  Ratisb.  185G.] 

Two  works  on  Matthew,  noteworthy  for  that  time,  by  the  monks  of  Cor- 
vey,  Paschasius  Radbert  (f  8G5)  and  especially  Christianus  Druthmar  (c. 
870),  the  latter  philologically  learned  himself,  but  revealing  by  his  scholia 
the  ignorance  of  his  readers  even  more  than  his  own  learning  ;  ed.  Wimphe- 
ling,  Arg.  1514.  By  the  former  {0pp.,  ed.  Sirmond,  P.  1618)  also  upon  the 
Lamentations  and  Psalm  xlv. 

Engelmann  (Angelomus)  of  Luxeuil,  c.  855,  on  Genesis,  Samuel  and 
Kings,  and  Canticles,  Col.  1530  ff.,  separately.  Remigius  of  Auxerre,  c. 
880,  on  the  Psalms,  Minor  Prophets,  and  Paul,  the  latter  formerly  ascribed 
to  others,  even  to  Haymo  ;  Col.  1539,  and  in  various  larger  collections. 

See  in  general  J.  C.  Rittelmayer,  De  Vinterpretation  de  VEcriture  S.  pen- 
dant le  9e  siede,  Str.  1832  ;  Bahr,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Literatur  im  karo- 
lingischen  Zeitalter,  Carlsr.  1840. 

529.  Inasmuch  as  these  endeavors  had  not  proceeded  from 
an  actual  need,  they  quickly  tired  and  gave  place  to  an  indo- 
lence yet  more  stolid.  The  interpretations  were  soon  still 
more  abridged  and  either  placed  in  the  margin  of  the  text,  or 
at  the  end  of  the  smaller  divisions,  in  the  form  of  scholia,  from 
which  their  lack  of  coherence  and  comprehensiveness  is  mani- 
fest. Literal,  moral,  and  mystical  interpretations  are  placed 
side  by  side,  under  the  proper  rubrics.  It  is  in  this  way  that 
the  tendency  of  science  to  abridge  and  to  be  content  with  sec- 
ond hand  knowledge  is  most  clearly  evident.  From  the  mar- 
gin the  glosses  strayed  between  the  lines,  in  wild  confusion 
and  full  of  contradictions.  For  even  this  miserable  harvest  of 
exegetical  learning  was  raked  together  on  foreign  fields. 

Glossce  extrinsecce,  marginales ;  intrinsicce,  interlineares.  Post'dlce  in  the 
later  sense.  If  we  consider  the  thing,  without  regard  to  the  name,  the 
method  of  glossing  in  distinction  from  that  of  commenting  was  much  more 
prevalent.     Cf.  my  article  Glossen,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 

The  two  most  famous  works  to  be  mentioned  here  are  those  known  under 
the  names  Glossa  ordinaria  and  Glossa  interlinearis  in  particular  ;  the  former 
by  Walafrid  the  Squint- Eyed  (Strabus,  Strabo),  Abbot  of  Reichenau  (f  849), 
(and  others  ?),  gathered  from  Augustine,  AmlDrose,  Jerome,  Gregory,  Isi- 
dore, Bede,  Alcuin,  and  Hrabanus,  with  anonymous  glosses,  doubtless  by  the 
compiler  himself,  without  exclusive  tendency,  the  chief  source  for  the  fol- 
lowing centuries,  called  by  Peter  Lombard  simply  Auctoritas  (Ed.  Reuss, 
Art.  Strabo,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.);  the  other  by  Anselm  of  Laon  (f  1117), 
very  brief  and  defective,  and  altogether  unscientific.  The  two  were  after- 
ward written  together  (§  466),  finally  also  printed  together,  with  the  text, 
s.  a.  et  I.  (e.  1480  ?),  4  vols.,  fob,  and  often  afterward  with  Lyra  (§  541). 
There  are  several  other  exegetical  works  by  this  Anselm  printed  in  the 
works  of  Anselm  of  Canterbury. 


552  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Other  glosses  by  Peter  Lombard,  Bishop  of  Paris  (f  1164)  [F.  Protois, 
Pierre  Lombard,  Par.  1881],  on  the  Psahus,  ou  the  basis  of  Anselni,  and  Col- 
lectanea on  Paul,  P.  1535,  1541,  separately  ;  but  especially  Hugo  a  S.  Caro 
(§§  329,  386),  Postillce  in  universa  biblia  sec.  quadruplicem  sensurn,  Ven.  1487, 
6  vols.,  fol.,  and  freq.  His  concordance,  which  was  often  revised  and  re- 
printed long  afterward,  may  also  be  mentioned  here,  as  a  work  in  aid  of 
exegesis.     See  on  it  C.  Meier,  in  the  Halle  Encykl.,  II.  11. 

630.  We  should  not  fail  to  note  the  fact  that  many  of  these 
glosses,  especially  in  later  times,  were  of  a  purel}^  linguistic 
character.  In  the  West  the  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language, 
which  had  been  the  exclusive  language  of  religious  science, 
was  lost  more  and  more,  and  when  one  observes  how  trivial 
the  marginal  notes  begin  to  be  from  a  grammatical  point  of 
view,  it  may  be  inferred  from  this,  in  connection  with  the  ab- 
sence of  any  other  than  the  Latin  text,  that  any  proper  use  of 
the  Bible,  even  among  the  clergy,  can  only  have  existed  to  an 
exceedingly  small  extent.  The  Greeks  also  wrote  philological 
scholia  in  their  copies,  mostly  extracts  from  older  commen- 
taries ;  we  are  accustomed  to  rank  them  higher  than  the  others 
because  they  ai'e  not  so  useless  to  us.  They  also  formed  sepa- 
rate collections  of  them,  in  alphabetical  order,  and  studied  the 
secular  writers  for  the  same  purpose  ;  these  then  became  the 
not  altogether  valueless  beginnings  of  Greek  lexicography. 

For  Greek  Scholia  on  the  N.  T.  see  the  editions  of  Gregory  (§  407)  and 
Matthfei  (§  413). 

Collections  of  notes  (y\oocrff7jfxaTa),  mostly  grammatical  and  historical,  on 
particular  difficult  expressions  (yAwaaat)  or  proper  names  in  the  Bible  and 
in  profane  writers,  from  the  twelfth  to  the  sixteenth  century,  by  lexicog- 
raphers, Hesychius  of  Alexandria,  Suidas,  Phavorinus,  J.  Zonaras,  and 
grammarians,  Thomas  Magister,  George  of  Trapezns,  Manuel  Chrj'soloras, 
and  many  others.  From  these  the  Glossre  sacrce  edited  separately:  Glossa- 
rium  gr.  in  N.  T.,  ed.  Alberti,  Leyd.  1735  ;  Hesycliii  glossce  ss.,  ed.  Valcke- 
uaer  (0pp.,  I.  173  if.);  ed.  J.  C.  G.  Ernesti,  L.  1785  ;  Suidce  et  Phavorini 
gl.  ss.,  ed.  Ernesti,  L.  1786  ;  J.  F.  Schleusner,  Auctarium  obss.  in  Snidam  et 
Hesychium,  1809  ff.,  Pts.  I.-IV.  ;  Zonarce  gl.  ss.  specimen,  ed.  F.  W.  Sturz, 
1818  f.,  I.,  II.  ;  a  glossary  on  Paul,  ed.  Matthfei,  Moscow,  1774. 

Cf.  Fabrichis,  Bibl.  gr.,  IV.  540  ;  J.  A.  Ernesti,  De  vero  usu  et  indole  glos- 
sarioriim  gr.,  L.  1742  ;  J.  C.  Harenberg,  in  Bibl.  brem.  nov.,  V.  280,  VI.  278  ; 
J.  C.  G.  Ernesti,  De  glossis  ss.  Hesycliii,  1782  ;  idem,  De  Suidce  usu  ad  crisin 
et  interpr.  II.  ss.,  1785  ;  Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  interpr.,  IV.  356.  [S.  Berger,  De 
glossaries  et  compendiis  exegeticis  quibusdam  medii  cevi,  Par.  1879.] 

631.  In  the  Greek  monasteries  the  custom  more  and  more 
pi-evailed,  which  indeed  had  not  been  unexampled  even  earlier, 
of  placing  the  notes  of  various  expositors  on  a  particular  pas- 
sage side  by  side,  unaltered  and  in  summary  form,  so  that 
they  formed,  as  it  were,  a  continuous  chain  of  connected  links 
of  interpretation.  Such  works  make  scarcely  any  cLiim  to 
merit  of  their  own,  and  are  to  be  judged  solely  according  to 
the  extent  of  their  sources,  among  which  may  be  some  lost 


THE   MIDDLE   AGES  — CATENAE.  663 

to  US,  or  according  to  their  particular  point  of  view,  if  tliey 
have  one.  This  kind  of  writing  certainly  betokens  a  low  ebb 
of  science  ;  yet  several  who  occupied  themselves  in  it  deserve 
honor  for  their  wise  choice.  This  last  endeavor,  however,  was 
too  weak  to  win  for  the  study  of  the  Bible  a  place  in  theology 
which  it  had  not  been  able  to  maintain  in  a  stronger  century. 

Catence  Patrum,  aelpai  twi/  narepaiu,  (TvAAoyal,  ffvvayaiyal  i^rjyfiffeaiv,  iiriTOfial 
ep)x7)vnwv.  Cf.  Th.  Ittig,  De  catenis  et  bibliothecis  Patrum,  L.  1707;  Fabricius, 
Bibl.  gr.,  VII.  ;  Bucldeus,  Isag.,  p.  1422  ;  Le  Moyne,  Varia  sacra,  prole- 
gomena, p.  53  ;  J.  F.  S.  Augustin  (prjes.  J.  A.  Nosselt),  De  catenis  PP.  grce- 
corum  in  N.  T.,  Hal.  1762  ;  RosenmuUer,  Hist,  interpr.,  IV.  263  flf.;  Fritzsclie, 
Art.  Exeg.  Sammlungen,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 

Relative  extent  and  value  of  them.  The  authors  mostly  unknown,  the 
text  in  a  doubtful  state  ;  many  still  unprinted.  Summary  in  Walcli,  Bibl. 
theoL,  IV.  388,  and  Bibl.  patr.,  ed.  Dauz,  p.  247;  Grasse,  Literaturgesch.,  III. 
253.  The  name  (of  later  origin)  has  been  applied  by  some  to  similar  works 
from  Procopius  and  Primasius  down. 

Passing  over  mere  translations,  we  mention  (Nicephori)  Setpa,  etc.,  com- 
piled from  fifty-one  writers,  on  the  Octateuch  and  the  books  of  the  Kings, 
L.  1772  ff.,  2  vols.  fol.  ;  Nicetfe  Cat.  PP.  gr.  in  Jobum,  ed.  P.  Junuis,  Lond. 
1637,  fol.  ;  Expositio  PP.  gr.  in  Psalmos,  ed.  Cordier,  Antw.  1643,  3  vols.  fol. 
On  the  N.  T.  there  are  printed  :  two  on  Matthew,  ed.  P.  Poussin,  Toul. 
1646,  2  vols.  fol.  ;  one  on  Mark,  by  the  same,  Rome,  1673,  fol.  ;  Victoris 
Antioch.  et  aliorum  Cat.  in  Marcum,  ed.  Matthsei,  Moscow,  1775,  2  vols.  8°; 
Catense  on  Luke  and  John,  ed.  B.  Cordier,  Antw.  1628,  1630,  fol.,  the  first 
only  in  Latin.  A  series  of  Greek  Catente  on  the  whole  N.  T.,  ed.  J.  A. 
Cramer,  Oxf.  1838  ff.,  8  vols.  8°. 

Among  these  Catense  are  also  reckoned,  but  improperly,  the  collections 
founded  chiefly  on  Chrysostom  and  prepared  in  his  spirit  by  (Ecumenius  of 
Tricca  in  Thessaly  (10th  cent.  ?  Von  Colin,  in  tlie  Encyld.,  III.  2)  on  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  (ed.  Morel,  P.  1631,  2  vols,  fol.),  by  Theophylact,  Bishop 
in  Bulgaria,  on  the  greater  part  of  the  N.  T.  (^Gospels,  P.  1631  ;  Paul,  Lond. 
1636  ;  0pp.,  Yen.  1754,  4  vols,  fol.),  and  by  the  Constantinopolitan  monk 
Euthymins  Zigabenus  on  the  Gospels  (ed.  Mattthaii,  L.  1792,  4  vols.  8°),  the 
last  two  in  the  twelfth  century  ;  by  Euthymins  also  on  the  Psalms.  Fabri- 
cius, Bibl.  gr.,  VII.  460.  —  Euthymins,  (Ecumenius,  and  Arethas  (§  527)  are 
printed  together  in  the  edition  of  the  text  of  Theoklitos  Pharmakides,  re- 
ferred to  in  §  413. 

532.  The  methods  in  which  we  have  seen  that  the  would- 
be  learned  study  of  the  Bible  was  carried  on  thus  sufficiently 
confirm  the  well-known  fact  that  in  the  Middle  Ages  all  theo-i 
logical  knowledge  had  become  a  matter  of  tradition,  and  no\ 
free  intellectual  activity  or  independent  progress  was  longer  \ 
to  be  thought  of.  This  state  of  things  was  due  as  much  to  the 
course  which  mental  training  had  taken,  and  to  the  way  in 
which  on  the  one  side  worldliness  and  brutality  and  on  the 
other  mysticism  and  asceticism  divided  between  them  the  con- 
trol of  the  clergy,  as  to  the  pressure  from  above  to  wliich  alone 
it  is  usually  charged.  Discussion  of  dogma  had  become  alto- 
gether unnecessary,  hence  also  discussion  from  the  Scriptures ; 
and  study   of  them  directly  for  the  people  because  the  Ian- 


554  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

guage  closed  them  to  the  jaeople.  There  remained,  therefore, 
nothing  whatever  save  mental  gymnastics  in  the  monkish  taste 
of  the  time. 

It  has  already  been  related  under  the  History  of  the  Canon,  §  330,  how  it 
was  not  until  the  heretical  reaction  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries 
that  a  proper  dogiuatico-scientific  use  of  the  Scriptures  began  to  come  in 
again,  and  even  then,  in  the  ruling  Church,  only  so  far  as  it  was  externally 
necessary  for  controversial  purposes.  Exegetical  works  in  this  sense  we 
have  none  to  bring  forward,  l)ut  the  Acts  of  the  Inquisition  and  various  his- 
torical and  controversial  writings  of  the  age  of  the  Cathari,  and  continuing 
from  that  time,  show  that  practical  life  to  a  certain  extent  revived  even  this 
side  of  the  use  of  the  Bible  earlier  than  did  science. 

533.  The  rise  of  scholasticism,  which  brought  a  more  vigor- 
ous life  into  literature  in  general,  also  brought  about,  exter- 
nally considered,  a  greater  fruitfulness  in  the  field  of  Scripture 
interpretation.  Yet  upon  closer  examination  it  is  much  less 
than  one  might  have  expected  of  a  theology  so  highly  wa-ought. 
The  starting  point  of  this  science  was  something  wholly  differ- 
ent from  the  study  of  the  Bible.  For  anything  belonging  to 
history  or  which  must  be  historically  apprehended,  the  men  of 
the  schools  had  no  susceptibility.  They  were  far  too  thor- 
oughly the  slaves  of  formalism  and  logic  to  find  in  tiie  rich 
material  of  the  sacred  books  much  more  than  an  opportunity 
for  the  extension  of  their  systems,  or  the  garnishing  of  their 
dead  and  empty  categories.  As  the  Church  had  put  Moses 
and  Christ  on  a  level,  so  it  was  their  attempt  to  reconcile  both 
with  Aristotle  by  putting  upon  each  the  dress  of  the  other. 
The  doctrine  they  obtained  from  the  Church  ;  but  their  philos- 
ophy they  managed  so  well  that  they  can  now  maintain  it 
as  a  free  possession  of  their  own. 

The  most  eminent  exegetes  among  the  scholastics,  properly  so-called,  or 
at  least  those  most  influential  in  their  time,  are  :  Rujjrecht  of  Deutz  (f  1135), 
on  the  Minor  Prophets,  Canticles,  John,  Apocalypse,  and  other  works,  espe- 
cially De  trinitate  et  operihus  ejus,  an  exegetico-dialectic  work  on  the  greater 
part  of  the  Bible  {0pp.,  Mog.  1631,  3  vols,  fol.)  ;  Peter  Abelard  (f  1142),  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  {0pp.,  P.  161G)  ;  John  of  Salisbury  (f  1182), 
on  Paul,  Amst.  1646  ;  Tliomas  Aquinas  (f  1274),  on  Job,  Psalms,  Prophets, 
especially  the  afterward  so-called  Catena  aurea  in  Evv.,  and  an  exposition  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles  (0pp.,  P.  1636  ff.,  23  vols,  fol.)  ;  Albert  the  Great, 
Bishop  of  Regensburg  (f  1280),  on  the  Prophets,  Gospels,  Apocalypse,  and 
the  so-called  Mariale,  i.  e.  on  the  pericope  of  the  Annunciation  of  Mary,  in 
230  scliolastic  Qu(estiones.  (0pp.,  ed.  Jammy,  Lyons,  1651,  21  vols,  fol.) 
[See  Hortel,  Thorn,  von  Aquino  u.  seine  Zeit,  Augsb.  1846  ;  Hampden,  Life  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  Lond.  1848  ;  Cicognani,  Sulla  vita  di  S.  Tomasso,  1874,  E. 
tr.,  Life  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  Loud.  1882  ;  W.  T.  Townsend,  The  Great 
Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Lond.  1882.] 

Among  the  scholastic  treatises  on  the  Bible  should  also  be  reckoned  the 
Historia  scholastica  of  Peter  Comestor  (le  Maugeur),  priest  at  Troyes,  after- 
ward chancellor  at  Paris  (f  1179),  properly  a  Historical  Bible  with  most 
wretched  profane  history  interwoven,  for  the  schools,  and  with  appendices 
consisting  of  more  or  less  extensive  ]jhilosopliico-exegetical  excui'suses  and 
glosses.     Frequently  printed  from  1473  on.     Cf .  §  466. 


THE  MIDDLE   AGES  — SCHOLASTICISM.  555 

634.  In  general,  the  peculiar  character  which  science  took 
on  under  the  hands  of  these  renowned  schools  is  to  be  recog- 
nized in  their  exegetical  works  but  rarely  and  with  limitations. 
True,  some  attempted  to  apply  their  well-known  dialectic 
method  to  exposition,  but  inasmuch  as  exegesis,  even  by  these 
theologians,  was  only  exceptionally  taken  up  in  the  service  of 
dogmatics,  they  had  no  interest  in  working  out  in  an  accurate 
and  thorough  way  the  relation  between  Scripture  and  philoso- 
phy. Generally  speaking,  indeed,  where  scholasticism  was  able 
to  give  itself  up  freely  to  its  scientific  bent,  although  proceed- 
ing from  a  positive  basis,  it  did  not  attempt  to  fix  even  this,  and 
its  occupation  with  the  Bible  was  mostly  only  an  incidental 
matter  inviting  to  trifling,  in  which  the  sacred  text  furnished 
not  so  much  the  subject  as  the  opportunity  for  disputation. 

The  manifold  sense  of  Scripture  was  a  datum  ;  scholasticism  had  not  to 
prove  this  principle,  but  to  vindicate  it  logically  and  then  to  follow  it,  as  its 
predecessors  had  done  :  Alexander  Ales.,  Summa,  Pt.  I.  qu.  1,  membr.  4,  art. 
2  ff .  :  Hie  modus  est  in  S.  S.  ut  sit  unicus  sensus  literce  multiplex  vero  in  mys- 
terio  .  .  .  Quatuor  sunt  sensus  S.  S.  .  ,  .  cum  Veritas  prima  trina  sit  et  una, 
modus  scientice  veritatis  prima  est  trinus  in  uno  ;  unus  literalis  triplex  spiritualis, 
anagogicus  ad  Patrem,  allegoricus  ad  Filium,  tropologicus  ad  Sp.  S.  —  Thorn. 
Aquin.,  Summa,  Pt.  I.  qu.  1,  art.  10  :  Auctor  S.  S.  est  Deus  in  cujus  potestate 
est  ut  non  solum  voces  ad  significandum  accommodet,  sed  etiam  res  ipsas,  et  ideo, 
cum  in  omnibus  scientiis  voces  significant  res,  hoc  habet  proprium  ista  scientia, 
quod  ipsce  res  signatce  per  vocem  etiam  significant  aliquid.  Ilia  ergo  prima 
signijicatio,  qua  voces  significant  res,  pertinet  ad  primum  sensum  qui  est  .  .  . 
literalis  ;  ilia  vero  qua  res  significatce  per  voces  iterum  res  alias  significant  dici- 
tur  sensus  spiritualis,  etc. 

The  scholastico-dogmatic  discussions  (collationes) ,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  school,  usually  appear  as  external  appen- 
dices to  the  customary  extracts,  which  often  do  not  go  beyond  glosses.  Lack 
of  system  (e.  g.,  in  the  determination  of  the  dogmatic  character  of  the  sep- 
arate portions,  epistles,  sections)  and  classification  prevails  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent  in  the  expositions.  The  meaning  of  Scripture,  from  bold  dia- 
lectic hairsplitting,  became  inexhaustible  (according  to  Bonaventura,  beside 
the  senses  already  named,  the  symbolic,  hyperbolic,  and  synedochical)  ;  but 
notwithstanding  all  the  ecstasy  over  its  depth  (see  Bonaventura,  Princip. 
S.  S. :  Est  ejus  inattingibilis  altitudo  propter  auctoritatem  inviolabilem,  inex- 
haustibilis  plenitudo  propter  profunditatem  imperscrutabilem,  infallibilis  certitudo 
propter  processum  irrefellihilem,  impretiabilis  valetudo  propter  fructum  incestima- 
hilem,  incontaminabilis  pulcritudo  propter puritatem  impermixtibilem,  etc.,)  extra- 
ordinarily little  that  was  new  or  of  genuine  worth  was  brought  to  light  from 
the  mine. 

See  in  general  A.  Tholuek,  De  Thoma  Aq.  et  Abalardo  S.  S.  interpretibus, 
Hal.  1842  ;  E.  C.  W.  Elster,  De  medii  mvi  theologia  exegetica,  Gott.  1855  ; 
Jul.  Soury,  Des  etudes  hebra'iques  et  exegttiques  an  moyen  age,  P.  1867. 

535.  The  two  otherwise  opposed  parties  of  the  age,  the  scho- 
lastics and  the  mystics,  met  upon  this  field.  With  both  the 
proper  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures  had  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent  disappeared ;  they  had  i-eceived  their  exegetical  princi- 
ples by  like  inheritance,  and  not  merely  had  their  exegesis  come 


556  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

to  them  from  dogmatics,  as  elsewhere  in  Christendom,  but 
both  alike  from  tradition.  In  all  this,  therefore,  there  was 
no  cause  for  the  ap^^earance  of  the  opposition  existing  between 
them  on  other  points.  The  one  party  could  exercise  its  wits 
in  interpretations  precisely  like  those  to  which  the  other  was 
perhaps  drawn  rather  by  its  cast  of  mind,  and  the  subtle,  cap- 
tious method  of  the  former  was  also  the  most  natural  form  of 
thought  to  the  latter  when  they  were  willing  to  allow  the  in- 
tellect to  speak. 

The  number  of  exegetical  writings  having  a  definitively  practical  purpose 
(mostly  tropological,  now  called  moral)  increases  especially  from  the  twelfth 
century  on  ;  but  there  are  but  few  famous  names  to  be  mentioned,  and  these 
known  mostly  for  very  different  causes  than  their  exegetical  labors.  E.  g., 
Guibert  of  Nogent,  tropologies  on  some  of  the  Prophets  and  Genesis  ;  Bern- 
hard  of  Clairvaux  (1140),  especially  for  his  eighty-six  Sermones  on  the  Song 
of  Solomon  ;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (f  1141),  on  the  greater  part  of  the  Bible 
[Best  edition  of  his  works,  Rouen,  1648,  3  vols.  See  Liebner,  Hugo  von  St. 
Victor,  1832.]  ;  Richard  of  St.  Victor  (f  1173),  on  the  Psalms,  Canticles,  and 
the  temples  of  Moses,  Solomon,  and  Ezekiel  [Best  edition  of  his  works, 
Rouen,  1G50.  See  J.  G.  v.  Engelhardt,  Richard  von  St.  Victor,  Erl.  1838.]  ; 
Honorius  of  Autun,  on  all  the  poetical  books  of  the  O.  T.  ;  Radulf  of  Fla- 
vigny  (c.  1130),  on  Leviticus  ;  Herve  of  Mans,  on  Isaiah  and  Paul,  the  latter 
formerly  ascribed  to  Anselm  of  Canterbury,  Col.  1533  ;  Zacharias  of  Gold- 
borough  (Chrysopolitanus),  on  the  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  all  in  the  twelfth 
century;  also  Cardinal  Bonaventura  (f  1274),  on  the  Psalms,  Ezekiel,  Canti- 
cles, Luke,  John,  Apocalypse  (0pp.,  Rome,  1588,  8  vols.  foL,  Suppl.,  Trid. 
1772,  3  vols.  foL),  etc.  [A.  Holleuberg,  Studien  zu  Bonaventura,  Berl. 
1862.] 

Of  the  great  mass  of  exegetes  of  the  fourteenth  century,  most  of  whose 
works  have  wholly  disappeared,  we  mention  also  Vitalis  a  Furno  (du  Four), 
Speculum  morale  totius  S.  S.,  Lyons,  1513  ;  Peter  Berchorius  (le  Bercheur), 
Prior  at  St.  Eloi,  near  Paris  (f  1362),  Reductorium  morale  super  tota  hihlia, 
and  Dictionarium  morale  bibl.,  0pp.,  Col.  1684,  3  vols.  fol.  ;  Robt.  Holcott, 
Moralitates  historiarum,  Ven.  1505,  and  the  Commentaries  on  the  Psalms,  fre- 
quently printed  in  the  early  days  of  the  art,  by  Peter  of  Herental,  Michael 
Angrianus,  Joh.  de  Turrecremata,  and  Jac.  Perez  de  Valentia ;  some  of 
these  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

536.  Yet  the  general  tendency  of  the  mystic  school  was  not 
wholly  without  influence  upon  the  interpretation  of  Scriptm'e. 
This  influence  manifested  itself  in  the  choice  of  subjects,  in 
the  preference  for  certain  lines  of  thought,  in  the  frequency  of 
particular  figures.  Among  the  mystics  the  so-called  moral 
element  in  the  meaning  of  Scripture  was  most  prominent ;  by 
which  is  meant,  however,  not  a  pithy,  vigorous,  and  practical'7 
application  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  the  heart  and  quick-' 
ening  the  conscience,  but  a  trifling  and  lifeless,  often  even 
thoughtless,  contemplation  of  the  states  of  the  soul  before  and 
after  regeneration.  Every  text  was  in  reality  equally  avail- 
able for  this  purpose ;  but  the  Old  Testament  especially  in- 
vited to  it,  particularly  in  portions  where  purely  historical  ma- 
terial offered  free  play  to  the  imagination.     No  book  has  been 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES— MYSTICISM.  557 

treated  in  this  way  so  many  times  as  the  Song  of  Solomon,  be 
cause  in  a  purely  external  asceticism,'  intellectual  revehy  amid 
voluptuous  imagery  is  gladly  indulged  in  as  a  substitute  for 
the  forbidden  bodily  pleasures. 

Cf.  Cramer,  Continuation  of  Bossuet's  WelUjeschichte,  VI.  101  ff.  ;  Ed. 
Cunitz,  Hist,  critique  de  V interpretation  du  cantique  des  cantiques,  Str.  1834  ; 
F.  Uhlemann,  De  oaria  Cantici  interpr.  ratione,  B.  1839. 

Aside  from  the  Canticles,  whose  interpreters  are  innumerable,  the  Psalms 
in  particidar  were  treated  for  purposes  of  edification,  not  only  with  more 
reason,  but  also  moi-e  happily. 

The  prophetical  exegesis  of  the  Abbot  Joachim,  of  Floris  in  Calabria 
(f  1202),  is  peculiar.  He  expounded  the  apocalyptic  prophecies  as  such,  and 
with  the  strictness  of  a  reformer,  against  the  corruption  of  the  world  and 
the  Church  (Ven.  1519,  and  freq.  ;  see  Halm,  in  the  Studien,  1849,  II.  401), 
while  the  numerous  other  commentaries  on  the  Revelation  of  John  were  all 
of  the  mystic-contemplative  sort. 

537.  And  yet,  if  we  consider  the  spirit  of  the  time,  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  this  mystic  treatment  of  Scripture  that  the  Middle 
Age  expressed  its  last  and  most  Christian  thought.  True,  the 
custodians  of  the  word  had  lost  the  real  character  of  the  Bible, 
as  connected  history,  law,  and  gospel,  and  the  veil  of  Moses  lay 
heavy  and  thick  over  their  eyes ;  but  they  still  lived  in  glad 
faith  in  the  richness  of  an  inexhaustible  revelation,  and  read 
continually  from  out  the  motley  manifohhiess  of  its  figures  the 
earnest  exhortation  to  separateness  from  the  world.  The  body 
in  sackcloth,  the  heart  with  the  saints,  and  the  gaze  on  the 
cross,  they  found  the  way  of  recovery  from  the  longest  and 
most  anxious  birth-throes  which  the  hum;m  race,  so  far  as  its 
history  is  known,  has  ever  undergone.  And  if  the  light  of  the 
Spirit  onlv  came  to  them  through  the  painted  windows  of 
their  cloisters,  half-quenched  and  distorted  withal,  it  did  not 
dazzle  an  unprepared  eye,  but  threw  a  gentle  gleam  upon  the 
dark  walls  of  the  cell,  which  concealed  the  nobler  life  of  the 
century  and  with  it  the  hope  of  the  future. 

The  exegetical  literature  of  tlie  Middle  Age  is  worthy  to  have  an  anthol- 
ogy gathered  from  it  in  a  more  friendly  spirit  than  it  has  been  done,  for  ex- 
ample, by  Rosenmiiller,  or  could  be  done  by  earlier  writers.  Only  one  must 
not  go  to  it  with  the  question,  what  has  it  accomplished  for  a  real  historico- 
didactic  understanding  of  Scripture,  if  he  would  appreciate  its  true  value. 
History  and  dogmatics,  in  their  relation  to  the  Bible,  ought  to  be  subject  to. 
a  sound  hermeneutics  ;  edification  does  not  depend  upon  hermeneutics,  but 
upon  the  Christian  principles  and  ideas  which  the  reader  brings  with  him, 
and  may  be  all  the  more  legitimate  an  element  of  the  whole  exj)osition  inas- 
much as  more  can  avail  themselves  of  it. 

538.  Such  were  the  exegetical  treasures  which  the  monastic 
labors  of  the  Middle  Age  had  gathered,  rather  for  immediate 
edification  than  for  the  purposes  of  a  scientific  understanding 
and  a  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures.  The  time  was  draw- 
ing near  when  new  political  and  ecclesiastical  arrangements 


558  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

were  to  change  the  social  and  intellectual  life  of  Europe.  On 
one  side  and  another  the  day  began  to  dawn  for  science.  But 
she  awoke  grachially,  as  from  a  heavy  sleep ;  nowhere  more  so 
than  in  the  field  we  are  now  considering.  If  it  were  impor- 
tant here  to  mention  the  more  remote  causes  which  combined 
to  produce  this  remarkable  resurrection,  we  might  refer  to 
many  facts  otherwise  well-known  in  history ;  but  we  content 
ourselves  with  those  which  are  more  closely  connected  with 
religious  science.  The  active  intercourse  with  the  Orient,  the 
freer  life  of  the  universities  beside  the  gloomy  existence  of  the 
cloisters,  the  ecclesiastical  confusion,  itself  a  fruit  of  awaken- 
ing consciousness,  the  growing  power  of  the  state  as  opposed 
to  the  Church,  the  fear  that  the  people,  now  coming  to  their 
majority,  and  infected  with  the  spirit  of  freedom,  might  slip 
away  altogether  from  the  guidance  of  the  priesthood,  all  this 
contributed  to  introduce  a  more  active  life  into  the  schools. 

In  a  much  less  degree  we  miglit  take  account  (1)  of  the  more  frequent' 
exegetical  lectures  at  the  universities  and  in  the  monasteries,  which,  how- 
ever, did  not  pass  beyond  the  ordinary  mystic  and  scholastic  horizon  ;  (2) 
the  founding  of  chairs  for  the  Oriental  languages,  decreed  at  Vienne  in  1311, 
the  design  of  which  was  simply  a  more  effective  missionary  activity;  (3)  the 
return  of  some  from  Aristotle  to  Plato,  which  did  not  take  place  until  the 
very  close  of  this  period,  and  had  very  little  influence  upon  exegesis.     §  543. 

639.  But  long  before  these  and  other  causes  bad  been  able 
to  produce  any  noteworthy  effect  upon  Christian  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  Jews, had  set  a  good  example  altogether  with- 
out these  incitements.  They  also  had  had  their  wintry  mid- 
dle age,  —  shorter,  to  be  sure,  but  no  less  deadening  intellect- 
ually ;  they  also,  and  more  directly  than  the  Christians,  felt 
themselves  drawn  within  the  sphere  of  the  intellectual  move- 
ment of  that  people  which  had  for  a  long  time  been  the  only 
one  to  preserve  the  flowers  of  civilization  which  it  had  threat- 
ened to  destroy.  They  obtained  from  this  source,  beside  much 
else,  a  delight  in  linguistic  science,  and  hastened  to  apply  it, 
in  manifold  ways,  to  the  books  the  letter  and  law  of  which  had 
always  been  alike  sacred  to  them,  while  the  Christians  had 
often  forgotten  both.  First  in  Spain,  afterward  also  in  the 
countries  adjacent,  in  which  the  science  of  the  Orient  had 
taken  refuge,  they  applied  themselves  with  an  intelligent  and 
not  unfruitful  industry  to  their  sacred  writings,  and  wrote, 
beside  many  allegorical  and  scholastic  commentaries  in  which 
they  also  made  the  spirit  of  the  Bible  tributary  to  their  own 
and  that  of  the  time,  more  than  one  linguistically  and  histori- 
cally sound,  which  may  even  yet  be  read  with  profit. 

Inasmuch  as  the  literary  history  of  the  Jewish  exegesis  of  the  Middle 
Age  does  not  come  within  our  field,  and  naention  is  only  made  of  it  here  for 
the  honor  due  to  it,  and  because  even  in  the  fourteenth  century  it  was  be- 


THE  RENAISSANCE- JEWISH  EXEGESIS.  559 

ginning  to  exert  a  salutary  influence  on  the  Christian,  we  confine  ourselves  to 
the  names  most  justly  renowned  among  the  properly  grammatico-historical 
expositors. 

R.  Abraham  Aben  Ezra  of  Toledo  (f  1167)  [Erseh  and  Gruber's  EncyU. ; 
Gratz,  Gesch.  der  Juden,  VI.  pp.  198  ff.,  440  flE.]  and  R.  Solomon  Isaac 
(Yarchi,  Rashi)  of  Troyes  (f  1170)  [Jost,  Gesch.  des  Judenthums ;  Bloch, 
Lehensgesch.  d.  Salomo  Jizchaki,  1840],  both  on  the  whole  O.  T.  The  latter, 
however,  among  the  Jews  themselves  the  favorite  exegete  to  the  present 
day,  is  a  devotee  of  a  thoroughly  Jewish  scholasticism.  R.  David  Kimchi 
of  Narbonne  (f  1190)  on  the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa  ;  [his  work  on 
Zechariah  translated  by  McCaul,  Lond.  1837  ;  see  Art.  Kimchi,  in  Encycl. 
Brit.,  9th  ed.  XIV.]  Don  Isaac  Abravanel  (Abarbenel)  of  Lisbon  (f  1405) 
[Ersch  and  Gruber,  Encykl. ;  Gr'atz,  Gesch.  der  Juden,  VIII.  p.  334,  IX. 
p.  6.]  on  the  Pentateuch,  former  and  latter  Prophets.  Printed  together  in 
the  so-called  Rabbinical  Bibles,  e.  g.,  ed.  Buxtorf,  Basle,  1618,  3  vols.,  fol.  ; 
often  sejiarately  ;  also  in  Latin. 

There  is  also  found  among  the  Jews  of  this  period  halachistic  (canonistic), 
philosophic  (especially  cabalistic,  zealously  studied  by  the  scholars  of  the 
Renaissance),  and  allegorical  exegesis  (Midrash,  Rabboth).  See  in  general 
§  503,  and  also  Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  interpr.,  V.  210  ff.  ;  Augusti,  Preface  to 
Haymanu's  German  translation  of  Raschi's  Genesis  ;  Leusden,  Phil.  hebr. 
mixtus,  p.  110  ff. ;  Surenhusius,  Bi'jSAoy  KaraWay^s,  pp.  1-88  ;  R.  Simon,  V.  T., 
III.  chs.  v.-vii.  ;  Bnddeus,  Isag.,  p.  1433  ff.  ;  Schwarzauer,  in  Fiirst's  Orient, 
III.,  lY.  passim;  Ewald  and  Dukes,  Beitrdge  zur  Gesch.  der  Auslegung  des 
A.  T.,  Stuttg.  1844,  3  vols.  Many  essays  in  Fiirst's  Orient,  and  in  the  Zeit- 
schri/ien  of  Geiger,  Frankel,  Gratz,  etc. 

540.  In  the  Christian  Church  the  first  thing  to  attract  our 
attention  is  the  fact  that,  as  the  period  of  the  Reformation  ap- 
proaches, the  activity  in  the  field  of  exegesis  diminishes  rather 
than  increases.  As  in  the  beginning  it  was  the  Church  that 
brought  the  Scriptures  into  existence,  so  it  was  the  Reforma- 
tion that  brought  into  existence  the  true  study  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  not  the  reverse.  The  century  preceding  was  obliged 
to  direct  its  forces  upon  a  different  plan,  as  it  were  in  the 
prelude  to  the  mighty  battle.  On  the  eve  of  great  revolu- 
tions a  mysterious  impulse  directs  the  eyes  of  the  chosen 
leaders  of  the  movement,  small  and  great,  to  the  mightier 
motives  of  the  world  and  of  men.  Moreover,  upon  the  thus- 
far  trodden  highways  of  theology  there  were  too  many  hin- 
drances to  improvement.  Scholars  had  to  contend  not  only^ 
with  the  clergy,  in  so  far  as  they  were  disposed  to  oppose  free 
progress,  and  with  the  power  of  indolence  among  the  profes- 
sion, but  especially  with  the  insufficiency  of  their  own  means. 

This  appeared  most  strikingly  in  the  period  between  the  invention  of 
printing  and  the  Reformation,  during  which  scarcely  anything  new  or  worthy 
of  mention  was  written  upon  the  Bible,  and  the  presses  were  set  in  motion 
almost  exclusively  for  ancient  works.  The  latter  fact  alone  shows  suffi- 
ciently the  power  of  inherited  ideas.  It  was  only  by  the  dissemination  of 
the  classics  that  the  art  of  printing  directly  helped  on  the  revolution  of 
things.  In  the  realm  of  the  Church  it  did  not  place  itself  at  the  disposal  of 
the  new  ideas  until  they  had  already  come  to  maturity. 

541.  In  the  West,  of  which  alone  we  shall  speak  from  this 


560  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

point,  the  forms  and  tendencies  of  exegetical  works  became 
more  varied.  Bat  the  better  attempts  were  still  very  rare  and 
looked  upon  with  suspicion,  and  by  the  side  of  them,  much 
more  numerous,  apparently  also  more  successful,  were  the 
patchwork  compilations  of  the  old  style,  some  of  them  giving 
lamentable  evidence  of  the  neglect  and  poverty  of  the  literary 
culture  of  the  time.  While  on  the  one  hand  there  appears  the 
surprising  progress  of  improving  the  Latin  Bible  from  the  Rab- 
bins and  of  allowing  to  the  literal  sense  the  highest  value,  on 
the  other  the  ecclesiastical  power  asserts  all  the  more  decidedly 
its  right  and  intention  to  fix  this  sense  by  its  own  authority ; 
endless  scholastic  and  mystic  talk  expanding  into  monstrous 
commentaries  crushes  science  beneath  the  burden  of  its  own 
helplessness ;  and  the  first  beginnings  of  dogmatically  and 
morally  reforming  exegesis  border  in  time  upon  works  which 
are  only  too  bulky,  not  too  trivial,  to  pass  for  the  originals  of 
our  modern  pontes  asinorum. 

The  first  trace  of  the  apijlication  of  science  in  new  ways  is  found  in  the 
famous  work  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  a  Franciscan  monk  of  Normandy  (f  1340)  : 
Postillce  perpetuce  s.  commentaria  hrevia  in  universa  hiblia.  Li  advance  of  his 
predecessors  in  the  O.  T.,  through  the  influence  of  the  Jews  (Siegfried, 
Maschi's  Einfluss  auf  Nic.  v.  Lyra,  in  Merx'  Archiv,  I.  428)  (on  which  ac- 
count he  has  often  been  regarded  as  a  convert  ;  see  agamst  this  view  M.  PI. 
Reinhard,  Pentas  diss.,  p.  147),  he  inclined  more  to  the  historical  sense 
(Prol.  1  :  Hahet  iste  liber  hoc  speciale  quod  una  litera  continet  plures  sensus. 
.  .  .  Prol.  2  :  Omnes  tamen  prcesupponunt  sensum  literalem  tanquam  funda- 
mentum ;  unde  sicut  cedijicium  declinans  a  fundumento  disponitur  ad  ruinam, 
ita  expositio  mystica  discrepans  a  sensu  literali  reputanda  est  indecens  et  ineptci), 
and  propounded  the  theory  of  a  twofold  literal  sense,  whereby  proper  tyjjol- 
ogy,  especially  prophetic,  was  agam  recognized.  First  edition,  Rome,  1471, 
6  vols.,  fol.,  and  very  freq.  ;  last,  Antw.  1634,  6  vols.  In  some  editions  is 
found  the  Glossa  ordinaria,  in  most  polemical  Additiones  by  Paulus  of  Bur- 
gos (Prol.:  Sensus  litsralis  non  debet  did  ille  qui  repugnat  ecclesice  autorilati 
quaniumcunque  sit  conformis  significationi  literce)  and  Replicce  defensivce  by  the 
Franciscan  Matthias  Doring  (15th  cent.)  ;  see  Masch,  II.  3,  p.  357  £f.  ;  R.  Si- 
mon, V.  T.,  p.  414  ;  Commentateurs,  p.  477  ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1720,  pp.  229, 549. 

The  higher  appreciation  of  the  literal  sense  was  still  very  repugnant  to 
the  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  could  win  its  way  only  gradually.  See 
especially  J.  Charlier  de  Gerson,  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris 
(t  1429),  Propositio7ies  de  sensu  lit.  S.  S.  (0pp.,  ed.  Du  Pin,  Antw.  1706,  Vol. 
I.  p.  1),  Prop.  3  :  Sensus  literalis  judicandus  est  prout  ecclesia  a  Sp.  S.  inspi- 
rata  determinavit  et  non  ad  cuiuslibet  arhitrium.  [Lecuy,  Essai  sur  la  Vie  de 
Gerson,  Par.  1835,  2  vols.  ;  C.  Schmidt,  Essai  sur  Gerson,  Str.  1839  ;  Schwab, 
Joh.  Gerson,  Wiirzb.  1858  ;  H.  Jadart,  Jean  Gerson,  recherches  sur  son  origine, 
son  village  natal,  et  safamille,  Rheims,  1882.] 

The  latest  exegetes  of  the  old  school  before  the  dawn  of  the  period  of  the 
Renaissance  proper,  and  likewise  the  most  read,  are  Alphonsus  Tostatus, 
Bishop  of  Avila  (f  1455),  0pp.,  Ven.  1728,  27  vols.,  fol.,  seven  of  them  on 
Matthew  alone,  and  the  Carthusian  Dionysius  of  Rickel  (Doctor  ecstaticus, 
f  1471),  Opj).,  Col.  1533,  12  vols.,  fol.,  also  much  of  it  in  separate  portions, 
and  in  German  translation  of  the  same  period.     (§  331). 

The  first  examples  of  dogmatically  and  ethically  reforming  exegesis  are 
found  in  Wiclif  (of  whom,  however,  nothing  properly  exegetical  is  printed) 


THE  RENAISSANCE  —  STUDY  OF  THE   CLASSICS.        661 

and  in  John  Huss  (Narrative  of  the  Passion,  Corinthians,  Catholic  Epistles)  ; 
see  Hist,  et  monumenta  J.  Hussii,  Nor.  1714  f.,  II.  [See,  on  Wiclif,  Robt. 
Vaughan,  Lond.  1828,  2  vols.,  2d  ed.  1831  ;  new  edition  under  title  John  de 
Wyclife,  a  Monograph,  1853  ;  C.  W.  Le  Bas,  1833  :  G.  V.  Lecliler,  Johann 
von  Wiclif  und  die  Vorgeschichte  der  Reformation,  L.  1873,  2  vols.  ;  E.  tr. 
of  Vol.  I.  with  important  additional  notes,  by  Principal  Lorimer,  John  Wic- 
lif and  his  English  Precursors,  Lond.  1878,  2  vols.,  in  1  vol.  1881  ;  this  work 
supersedes  all  others.  See  also  R.  S.  Storrs,  John  Wycliffe  and  the  first 
English  Bible,  N.  Y.  1880  ;  Burrows,  Wiclif 's  Place  in  History,  Lond.  1882.  . 
On  Hus,  biographies  by  Fricdrich,  Regeusb.  1862  ;  Krummel,  Darnist.  1863  ; 
Gt'iWet,  Life  and  Times  of  John  Huss,  Boston,  1861,  2  vols.,  3d  ed.  1870  ;  Wrat- 
islaw,  John  Hus,  Lond.  1882.] 

On  the  lowest  step  scientifically  stood  the  author  and  readers  of  the 
famous  Mammotrectus  (corrupte  dictus,  quum  vero  nornine  dicatur  mammothrep- 
tus,  avice  alumnus,  Erasm.,  Colloq.,  p.  561  ;  this  name  is  from  Augustine,  on 
Ps.  XXX.,  where  the  printed  text,  p.  1,  is  unmeaning  :  Quia  morem  gcrit  ped- 
agogi  qui  gressus  dirigit  parvulorum  mammotrectus  (^a^^c^SpeTTTos?)  poterit  ap- 
pellari)  by  the  Minorite  J.  Marchesini  of  Reggio,  c.  1450  (according  to  Griisse, 
V.  202,  c.  1300),  a  Vade  mecum  on  the  Bible  and  spiritual  duties  ad  modum 
Min-Ellii,  designed  for  the  ruditas  pauperum  clericorum,  and  chiefly  of  gram- 
matico-lexical  contents  ;  nuper  cum  in  hunc  codicem  incidissem  minimum  ab- 
fuit  quin  risu  dissilirem  (Erasm.,  /.  c).  Twenty  editions  from  1470  on.  See 
M.  G.  Christgau,  De  mammotrecto,  Frankf.  a  V.  1740  ;  Merzdorf ,  Biblioth. 
Unterhalt,  Old.  1850  ;  Baumgarten,  Hall.  Bibl,  VI.  293. 

542.  But  here  must  be  mentioned  another  circumstance,  of 
an  altogether  peculiar  kind,  which  contributed,  though  not 
directly,  yet  perhaps  more,  and  more  lastingly,  than  any  other, 
to  the  happy  transformation  of  things.  This  is  the  knowledge"/ 
of  the  Greek  Lmguage  and  the  study  of  the  classics  in  general,  / 
which  since  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  had  been 
spreading  more  and  more  in  Western  Europe,  especially  in 
Italy  and  the  countries  of  the  Rhine.  For  it  not  onh'  gave  the- 
ologians the  opportunity  to  replace  the  only  text  of  the  New 
Testament  hitherto  accessible  by  a  more  authentic  one,  an 
advantage  they  learned  to  make  use  of  but  slowly,  but  what 
is  more,  it  educated  their  taste,  gave  to  the  philological  and  lit- 
erary instinct  natural  to  many  fresh  and  free  nourishment,  and 
aroused  in  them  again  a  consciousness  of  the  true  conditions  of 
correct  Scripture  interpretation.  Nor  were  the  Greeks  the 
only  ones  to  come ;  their  presence  reminded  of  the  other  ancient 
and  likewise  forgotten  guests,  the  Romans,  and  the  new  art 
and  zeal  of  the  printers,  who  were  themselves  not  the  least 
important  patrons  of  science,  put  them  into  every  one's  hands. 

The  first  fruit  in  this  field  was  the  Annotationes  in  latinam  N.  T.  in- 
terpr.  ex  collatione  gr.  exemplarium  of  Laurentius  Valla  (f  1457,  as  Canon  at 
Rome),  critical  and  exegetical  notes  on  particular  passages  of  the  Vulgate, 
without  interest  as  respects  theological  contents,  ed.  Erasmus,  P.  1505,  fol. 
Also  under  the  title  De  collatione  N.  T.,  ed.  J.  Revius,  Amst.  1630,  and  in 
the  Critici  ss.    Cf.  J.  Wildschut,  De  L.  Vallce  vita  et  scriptis,  Leyd.  1831. 

The  writings  of   Picus  de  Mirandula  on  the  creation  and  of  Marsilius 
Ficinus  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  belong  not  so  much  to  the  philologi- 
eal  as  to  the  philosophical  reactionary  tendency  of  the  century. 
36 


562  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

543.  How  mighty  an  influence  this  new  element  exerted 
upon  the  minds  of  the  awakening  learned  world  may  be  most 
readily  seen  partly  from  the  skeptical  aversion  with  respect  to 
the  medieval  ecclesiastical  science  into  which  many  allowed 
themselves  to  be  led  by  it,  partly  from  the  controversies  be- 
tween the  Humanists  and  their  opponents,  which,  like  fever 
symptoms,  accompanied  the  great  change  in  the  mental  atmos- 
phere. The  opponents  of  the  movement  saw,  almost  sooner 
than  its  friends,  whither  it  would  lead.  And  there  was  really 
great  danger  for  the  hitherto  ruling  power  in  the  fact  that 
men  were  no  longer  disposed  to  ascertain  what  the  Bible  might 
and  ought  to  have  said  from  the  decisions  of  the  Church  and 
by  the  aid  of  their  own  wit,  but  to  find  out,  by  means  of  sim- 
ple rules  of  language,  what  it  actually  did  say.  There  could 
not  fail  to  be  an  immediate  reflex  influence  upon  theology. 
This  change  was  already  completed  by  the  generation  preced- 
ing the  Reformation.  But  the  Reformation  itself  could  not 
proceed  from  those  who  saw  the  highest  attainment  of  the  new 
spirit  in  the  sjDhere  of  literary  cidture,  and  who  lacked  both 
the  courage  to  attain  greater  results  and  the  insight  to  see  that 
taste  and  science  alone  could  not  make  the  world  better. 

Jaques  Le  Fevre  d'Etaples  (§  473),  a  new  Latin  version  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  with  commentary,  P.  1513,  fol.  ;  commentary  on  the  GosjDels,  P. 
1522,  fol.  ;  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  Basle,  1527;  all  frequently.  His  ex- 
egesis is  still  uncertain,  embroiling  him  with  the  clergy  and  Erasmus  alike. 
[Graf,  Essai  sur  la  vie  et  les  e'crits  de  Lef'evre  d'Etaples,  Str.  1842,  and  an 
extended  biography  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  hist.  Theol.,  1852,  I.  and  II.] 

^lius  Antonius  Nebrissensis  (of  Lebrixa  in  Spain,  f  1522),  Quinquagena 
s.  L.  locc.  S.  S.  explanatio,  in  the  Critici  Sacri,  VIII. 

Tho.  de  Vio,  Cardinal  and  Bishop  of  Gaeta  (Cajetanus  ;  f  1534),  on  the 
N.  T.,  without  the  Apocalypse  ;  separately  :  Gospels,  Epistles,  etc.,  ad  sen- 
sum  literalem  accomodata,  with  free  views  (§  331),  and  independent  of  the 
Fathers.     0pp.,  Lugd.  1639  f. 

Desid.  Erasmus,  of  Rotterdam  (f  1536),  a  new  Latin  version  of  the  N.  T., 
in  his  editions  (and  often  reprinted,  §  400  ff.),  together  with  notes  (Anno- 
tationes ;  also  in  the  Critici  sacri  and  separately)  and  a  defense  in  advance 
contra  morosos  ac  indoctos,  the  manifesto  of  science  against  the  bondage  of 
custom.  Independent  of  this,  his  Paraphrases  {liherius  quoddam  perpetui  com- 
mentarii  genus  nom  commutatis  personis),  first  separately,  frequently  together, 
e.  g.,  Leyd.  1706,  fol.  ;  last  ed.  by  Augustin,  B.  1778,  3  vols.  8°,  with  liter- 
ary introduction  by  J.  A.  Nosselt.  The  paraphrastic  form,  in  itself  inept, 
was  nevertheless  for  that  time,  which  had  forgotten  how  to  look  for  the  con- 
nection of  thought  in  the  Scriptures,  an  inestimable  boon,  hiantia  committere, 
abrupta  mollire,  confusa  digerere,  involuta  evolvere,  iwdosa  expUcare,  obscuris 
lucem  addere,  hebraismum  romana  civitate  donare,  .  .  .  et  ita  temperare  irapd- 
<ppa<riv  ne  fiat  irapappSuriats  h.  e.  sic  aliter  dicere  ut  non  dicas  alia  (Ep.  dedic.  ad 
Card.  Grimanum,  before  the  Pauline  Epistles).  See  in  general  Burigny, 
Vie  d'Erasme,  P.  1757,  2  vols.  ;  H.  A.  Erhard,  in  the  Halle  Encykl. ;  Kerker, 
in  the  Tub.  Quartalschr.,  1859,  IV.  ;  G.  L.  Plitt,  in  the  Zeitschr.  fiir  luth. 
Theol.,  1866,  III.  [See,  on  Erasmus,  Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers,  Lond., 
2d  ed.  1869  ;  Drummond,  Erasmus,  his  Life  and  Character,  Lond.  1873,  2 
vols.  ;  Pennington,  Life  of  Erasmus,  Lond.  1875  ;  A.  Horawitz,  Erasmiana, 
Vienna,  1. 1878,  II.  1880.] 


HUMANISTS— THE  REFOEMATION.  563 

For  criticisms  upon  these  works  and  controversy  over  them  see  R.  Simon, 
I.  c,  p.  521,  and  in  general  A.  Miiller,  Leben  des  Erasmus  von  Rotterdam, 
Hamb.  1828,  and  especially  Burigny,  Vie  d'Erasme,  P.  1757;  German,  with 
additions,  by  H.  P.  C.  Henke,  Halle,  1782,  2  Pts.,  II.  533  f.  ;  H.  A.  Erhard 
in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encykl.,  I.  36. 

Contemporaneous  attacks  upon  the  monks,  their  language,  studies,  and 
doctrines  ;  Reuehlin,  Hutten.  Introduction  of  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. E.  T.  Llayerhoft',  /.  Reuehlin  und  seine  Zeit,  B.  1830  ;  Schnurrer, 
Biog.  Nachr.  von  Lehrern  d.  hebr.  Sprache  zu  Tubingen,  1792  ;  L,  Geiger, 
Das  Studiwn  d.  hebr.  Sprache  in  Deutschland  im  IGten  Jahrh.,  Br.  1870  ; 
Schrockli,  Kirchengesch.,  Vol.  XXX. 

544.  These  deeper  needs  found  eloquent  spokesmen  in  the 
men  to  whom  posterity  has  given  the  name  ol;  the  Reformers. 
Their  design  —  it  is  important  to  recognize  this  even  for  tlie 
purposes  of  our  history  —  did  not  extend  to  a  thorougli  and 
unprejudiced  revision  of  Christian  doctrine  according  to  the 
Scriptures.  On  this  matter  they  acknowledged  themselves  to 
be  in  accord  with  the  Catholic  Church  in  many  important 
points.  Their  attempt  was  rather  to  purify  it  from  practical 
corruptions  and  liturgical  or  disciplinary  abuses.  Their  funda- 
mental religious  principle  had  already  been  expressed  by  Au- 
gustine. It  was  not  introduced  into  theology  for  the  first  time 
as  a  new  discovery,  but  it  was  to  be  exegetically  established  as 
a  Christian  inheritance.  In  general,  however,  both  in  matters 
of  faith  and  of  church  constitution,  the  word  was  a  return  to 
the  Apostles. 

The  common  idea,  that  the  Reformation  was  undertaken  in  the  interest 
of  free  investigation  ("  libre  examen  "),  is  only  true  with  great  limitations, 
and  in  the  modern  sense  such  a  thing  as  criticism  of  the  Bible  on  the  basis 
of  reason,  or  in  opposition  to  the  contents  of  the  church  faith,  was  neither 
theoretically  recognized  nor  practically  tolerated  by  the  Reformers.  When 
they  desire  investigation  it  is  always  with  the  conviction  that  it  will  and 
must  —  and  that  from  the  Scriptures  and  not  in  any  otlier  way  —  establish 
precisely  that  which  was  already  the  substance  of  a  perfected  opposition  to 
the  traditional,  never  with  the  secondary  thought  that  it  is  only  by  continual 
investigation  in  the  future  that  the  truth  is  to  be  found  or  brought  nearer. 
The  History  of  the  Canon  has  already  sufficiently  shown  (§§  332,  334)  that 
the  material  principle  of  theology,  the  objective  contents  of  the  Gospel,  was 
from  the  beginning  the  absolute  standard  of  all  doctrine,  even  of  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves.     (Cf.  Diestel,  I.  c.,  p.  231  fE.) 

545.  Over  Hgainst  the  decrees  of  the  Church  was  set  as  a 
standard  the  sole  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  in  consequence 
to  the  Bible  itself  was  ascribed  the  highest  right  of  decision  in 
all  cases  of  disputed  interpretation.  This  point  of  view  com- 
pelled theologians  not  only  to  maintain  in  its  fidl  strictness  the 
principle,  never  given  up  in  theory,  of  the  divine  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures,  but  also  to  ascribe  and  vindicate  to  the  word 
of  God  in  its  written  form  a  series  of  properties  which  had  un- 
til then  been  denied  to  it,  in  particular  its  independent  clear- 
ness and  sufhcient  completeness  for  all  that  man  had  need  to 


564  HISTORY   OF  EXEGESIS. 

know.  Thus  it  came  about  that  in  the  points  of  immediate 
controversy  the  correct  interpretation  was  very  closely  con- 
nected wiih  the  dogmatic  interests  of  the  new  churcli,  and  in 
general  that  the  Bible,  by  the  very  principle  of  the  Reforma- 
tion itself,  was  raised  to  the  position  of  the  direct  object  of 
theological  study.  But  this  special  dogmatic  interest  of  itself 
gave  to  the  Scripture  interpretation  of  the  Reformers  a  certain 
one-sidedness.  It  was  essentially  dogmatic,  even  wliere  it  may 
be  called  practical,  and  from  this  time  on  we  may  speak  again 
of  what  during  the  Middle  Ages  did  not  exist  at  all,  or  at  least 
in  but  slight  degree,  —  a  proper  theological  use  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  in  this  connection  that  tlie  doctrines  which  the 
Reformation  made  most  prominent  —  those  of  anthropology  and  soteriology 
—  naturally  combined  most  intimately,  as  in  Paul  himself,  the  dogmatic  and 
ethical  elements  of  the  Gospel.  And  the  fact  that,  so  far  as  the  purely  meta- 
physical dogmas  were  concerned,  the  Reformers  stood  by  the  formulas  of 
the  great  church  councils  of  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  centuries,  shows  most 
clearly  that  the  Reforniation  had  its  basis  and  source  not  in  philosophic  at- 
tempts but  in  religious  needs  and  impulses. 

Equally  important  in  this  history  is  the  other  circumstance,  otherwise 
wholly  external,  that  from  the  first  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  was  car- 
ried on  by  the  Reformed  theologians  prevailingly  in  the  vernacular  lan- 
guages, not  only  in  the  pulpits  more  frequently,  thoroughlj^,  and  impres- 
sively, but  also  in  books. 

Here  should  be  mentioned,  from  dogmatics,  the  article  of  the  Affectiones 
S.S.  ;  among  which  especially  the  inspiratio  (even  of  the  letter,  Sp.  S.  auclor 
principalis'),  the  perspicuitas  (at  least ^'naZt's,  i.  e.,  of  everything  necessary  for 
salvation),  and  the  sujftcientia  (auctoritas  normativa  et  Judicialis)  in  opposi- 
tion to  tradition.     For  the  appropriate  passages  of  the  symbols  see  §  332. 

546.  But  even  the  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  in  pronounced 
opposition  to  the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  which 
necessarily  made  the  study  of  the  Bible  at  once  the  first  of  all 
sacred  sciences,  was  only  in  principle  wholh'^  correct,  and  in 
reality  did  not  win  freedom  of  investigation.  For  the  mass  of 
scholastic  conceptions  which  were  retained  without  question 
in  the  traditional  form  was  so  overwhelmingly  great  and  con- 
cerned points  so  essential,  especially  in  the  doctrines  of  God 
and  Christ,  that  the  system,  richly  blessed  with  inviolable  arti- 
cles of  faith,  became  fixed  while  as  yet  the  regenerated  art  of 
exegesis  had  but  just  begun  to  try  its  wings.  This  art  was 
still  in  its  infancy  when  a  rule  of  faith  laid  down  in  the  con- 
fessions and  afterward  more  and  more  sharply  set  forth  took 
it  under  its  motherly  care  and  discipline.  This  has  continued 
to  be  the  case  everywhere  much  longer  than  necessary.  True 
exegesis  was  made  subject  to  the  standard  of  the  true  faith. 

If  what  has  just  been  said  sounds  like  criticism  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
it  necessarily  follows  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  principles  of  exegesis, 
which  certainly  is  satisfied  only  in  so  far  as  purely  Biblical  Theology  is  sepa- 


THE   REFORMATION.  565 

rated  from  scholastic  (see  my  Hist,  de  la  Thc'ol.  Ckre't.,  I.  1  fP.).  The  prin- 
ciples of  a  subjective  or  scholastic  dogmatic  theology  ought  never  to  be  the 
histox'iau's  standard  of  judgment  respecting  the  progress  of  scriptui-al  theol- 
ogy. And  in  the  present  case  such  a  proceeding  would  be  as  thankless  as 
it  would  be  unfair. 

Form.  Cone,  Art.  2,  p.  655  f.,  Rbg. :  Hominem  .  .  .  ita  corruptum  esse  ut 
in  rebus  spiritualibus,  quce  ad  conversionem  et  salutem  nostram  speclant,  natura 
ccBcus  sit,  et  verbum  Dei  pnedicatum  neque  intelUgat  neque  intelliyere  possit  .  .  . 
donee  virtute  Sp.  S.  ...  ex  mera  gratia,  sine  omni  sua  cooperatione  converlatur, 
etc.  It  follows  logically  from  this  (Melanchthon,  Loci,  p.  369),  interpretatio 
est  donum  piorum. 

Conf.  Helv.,  1536,  Art.  2  :  S.  S.  interpretatio  ex  ipsa  sola  petenda  est  ut  ipsa 
interpres  sit  sui  caritatis  Jideique  regula  moderante.  Conf.  Helv.,  156G,  ch.  2  : 
Illam  duntaxat  S.  S.  interpreiationem  pro  orthodoxa  et  genuina  agnoscimus  quce 
ex  ipsis  est  petita  Scripturis  (ea;  ingenio  ejus  lingme  in  qua  sunt  scriptce  secun- 
dum circumstantias  item  expensce  et  pro  ratione  locorum  similium  plurium  et 
clariorum  expositce)  cum  regula  Jidei  et  caritatis  congruit  et  ad  gloriam  dei  hom- 
inumque  salutem  eximie  facit.  Conf.  Scot.,  Art.  18  :  (^Scripturce)  interpreta- 
tionem  neque  ad  privatam  neque  ad  publicam  aliquam  personam  pertinere  con^ 
Jitemur  neque  ad  ecclesiam  aliquam  .  .  .  sed  jus  et  aucloritatem  hanc  esse 
solius  Sp.  dei  per  quern  S.  S.  Uteris  sunt  mandatce,  etc.  Declar.  Thoriui.,  p. 
415,  Aug. 

Matth.  Flacius,  of  Jena  (f  1575),  the  first  among  Protestants  to  form  a 
hermeneutic  theory  (^Clauis  S.  S.,  Basle,  1567,  2  vols,  fol.,  and  freq.).  Tract. 
I.,  reg.  3  :  Sp.  S.  est  auclor  simul  et  explicator  scripturoe.  Reg.  9  :  Cum  con- 
vertimur  ad  Christum  turn  tolUtur  velamen  de  nostra  corde  et  etiam  de  ipsa  Scr. 
nan  solum  quia  illuminamur  spirituali  luce  sed  etiam  quia  scopum  et  argumentum 
totius  S.  S.  tenemus  nempe  ipsum  Dominum  Jesum  cum  sua  passione  et  beneficiis. 
Reg.  17:  Omnis  intellectus  ac  expositio  S.  S.  sit  analogia  Jidei,  with  an  attempt 
at  an  enumeration  of  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  faith  prefixed.  His 
rules  are  nothing  but  a  late  abstract  from  the  existing  common  practice. 
The  best  proof  of  the  relation  stated  between  exegesis  and  dogmatics  is  af- 
forded by  the  controversies  over  the  Lord's  Supper.  Cf.  Gust.  Frank,  De 
Mcitth.  Flacii  in  II.  ss.  meritis,  L.,  s.  a.  [See,  on  Flacius,  W.  Preger,  Matth. 
Flacius  lllyricus  und  seine  Zeit,  Erl.  1859^1861.] 

547.  What  had  been  begun  by  the  slowly  extending  clas- 
sical culture  was  completed  by  the  rapidly  gvowing  poleraic  in- 
terests, and  the  empty  and  trifling  allegorical  method  went 
out  of  use  almost  before  its  untenableness  was  clearly  recog- 
nized scientifically.  And  it  is  to  be  acknowledged  with  thank- 
fulness and  respect  that  much  was  accomplished  in  this  period 
for  grammatical  exposition  with  astonishingly  scant}'  aids. 
But  although  the  manifold  sense  of  Scripture  was  protested 
against,  the  historical  did  not  in  consequence  always  come  into 
honor,  and  particularly  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  explanation 
of  which  was  to  be  sought  in  the  New,  the  allegorical  inter- 
pretation was  often  regarded  as  the  only  acceptable  one.  Thus 
the  grammatical  interpretation,  in  name  at  least,  was  the  con- 
trolling exegetical  principle,  and  boasted  of  its  victory  over 
what  was  called  the  glittering  jugglery  of  the  sophists  and 
scholastic  theologians ;  but  wherever  it  threatened  dogmatics 
with  impoverishment  it  also  was  sacrificed. 


566  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Luther's  violent  invective  against  the  "  foolery "  [Affenspiel]  of  the 
spiritual  signification  (0pp.,  Halle,  XXII.  1981J)  expresses  religious  repug- 
nance to  the  monastic  learning  which  had  been  beaten  into  his  head  ; 
Melancthon's  quiet  discussions  (De  rhetorica  II.,  III.,  Basle,  1519  ;  Eleinenta 
rhetorice.A,  Vit.  1536),  logical  insight.  But  neither  of  them,  any  more  thaa 
their  successors,  had  a  clear  idea  of  the  allegorical  interpretation,  which  they 
at  the  same  time  combated  and  practiced. 

The  necessity  of  discovering  Messianic  references  everywhere  dominated 
exegesis.  Flacius,  I.  c,  p.  7  :  Finis  legis  est  Christus  ;  ille  solus  est  ilia  mar- 
garita  aut  thesaurus  quern  si  in  hoc  agro  domini  invenhnus  heiie  sumus  negotiati. 
Luther,  on  Gen.  xvi.  :  Grammatica  non  debet  regere  res  sed  servire  rehus. 
Cf.  his  preface  to  Canticles.  In  this  book  particularly,  as  well  as  in  the 
Psalms  and  the  Revelation  of  John,  the  literal  sense  failed  to  receive  due 
attention,  but  most  of  all  in  the  generally  accepted  special  Messianic 
prophecies.  On  the  contrary,  where  the  fundamental  questions  of  dogmatics 
were  not  prominent,  especially  with  Luther  himself,  it  was  a  sober  and 
unprejudiced  exegetical  judgment,  and  not  at  all  prejudice  against  them,  to 
find  in  prophets  and  disciples  "  beside  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones, 
wood,  hay,  and  stubble  ;"  see  Bretschneider,  Luther  an  unsere  Zeit,  1317; 
J.  F.  Krause,  Opusc,  p.  199  IS..,  in  which,  quite  one-sidedly,  of  comse,  Luther 
is  made  the  prototype  of  the  modern  "  rational  "  exegetes. 

Typology  was  properly  recognized  only  in  relation  to  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions and  Hebrew  histoi-y,  but  even  without  these  limits  custom  was  often 
stronger  than  rule.  Cf .  the  whole  section  De  multiplici  sensu  in  Flacius,  I.  c, 
p.  49  ff.,  where  the  case  is  foreseen  in  which  sensus  grammaticus  pugnat  cum 
sana  doctrina  vel  adversatur  ionis  moribus ;  nay  even  in  which  verba  gram- 
matice  sumpta  nullam  videntur  adferre  utilitatem  vel  sialiqua  apparet  longe  tamen 
proveniret  uberior  ibi  interpretatio  allegorica  adjungerentur. 

On  page  G3  he  thus  summarizes  the  whole  theory  :  Its  design  is  a  gram- 
matico-theological  exposition,  —  obtaining  by  the  former  the  understanding 
of  the  words  and  their  connection,  by  the  latter  that  of  the  meaning  or  pur- 
pose and  the  dogmatic  use  to  be  made  of  a  passage  ;  and  thus,  with  unmis- 
takable side-glances,  sets  up  a  new  quadruples  intelligentia  in  place  of  the  old. 

548.  It  naturally  follows  from  the  foregoing  that  the  method 
of  the  Reformed  exegesis  must  also  be  different  from  that  before 
followed.  The  discussion  of  the  relation  of  particular  passages 
to  the  theological  system  as  a  whole  came  into  the  foreground, 
and  the  individual  taste  of  the  expositor  either  rested  content 
with  the  grammatical  demonstration  of  this  relation,  or  made 
use  of  the  opportunity  to  treat  all  sorts  of  theological  doctrines 
in  dogmatic  and  practical  essays.  With  respect  to  the  first  it  is 
to  be  said  with  pride  that  the  influence  of  humanistic  pursuits 
made  itself  felt  continually,  and  formed  an  offset  to  the  growing 
scholastic  tendency  ;  with  respect  to  the  second  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked that  between  pulpit  and  professorial  chair  or  text-book 
scarcely  any  distinction  was  to  be  perceived.  Men  had  not  yet 
come  to  the  conviction  that  church  and  school  had  so  very 
different  needs.  With  respect  to  form,  it  is  also  characteristic 
that  the  Reformers,  being  unfriendly  to  tradition  from  principle, 
did  not  look  for  their  exegetical  basis  in  patristic  quotations  ; 
and  although  they  were  under  a  strange  delusion  in  im;igining, 
as  they  did,  that  they  had  based  their  theology  directly  upon 


THE  REFORMERS  —  LUTHERAN.  667 

the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  ignoring  the  work  of  fourteen 
centuries,  even  this  dekision  was  not  without  value  for  inter- 
pretation. 

In  no  other  period  of  this  history  does  the  dogmatic,  controversial,  and 
homiletic  literature  belong  so  closely  and  accurately  under  the  head  of  exe- 
gesis as  in  this  period  of  the  Reformation.  But  we  must  here  confine  our- 
selves, so  far  as  the  literature  is  concerned,  to  the  proper  commentators. 
Among  the  Lutherans  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  best  known  were  :  — 

Martin  Luther  (f  1546),  Werke,  ed.  Walch  (Halle,  1740  ff.,  24  vols.  4°), 
Vols.  l.-IX.  Vastly  better,  the  still  mcomplete  edition  of  Irmischer  and 
others,  Erl.  18'26  ff.,  Deutsche  Werke,  68  vols.  8°  ;  Opera  latina,  Vols.  L- 
XXXIII.  ;  twenty-six  of  the  latter,  twenty  of  the  former,  exegetical  in 
contents.  In  form,  however,  they  are  not  tlu'oughout  proper  commentaries, 
in  consequence  of  their  very  prominent  dogmatico-practical  aim.  (Genesis, 
Psalms,  Galatians,  etc.)  See  H.  v.  d.  Hardt,  Nervosus  Lutheri  in  S.  S.  com- 
meniarius,  Helmst.  1708  ;  J.  F.  Krause,  0pp.,  p.  242.  The  Latin  version  of 
the  Bible  (properly  only  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Kings,  and  N.  T.), 
printed  at  Wittenberg,  1529,  fol.,  whose  true  author  is  still  unknown,  vras 
formerly  ascribed  to  him  ;  see  Masch,  II.  3,  p.  325  ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1736, 
p.  746  ;  1737,  p.  630;  Fritzsche,  in  Herzog's  Encyklop.,  XVII.  440.  Mono- 
graphs by  L.  C.  Bloss,  1717  ;  C.  F.  Krafft,  1742  ;  J.  H.  Schuster,  1750  ; 
J.  G.  Walter,  1752  ;  J.  C.  Bertram,  in  the  German  edition  of  R.  Simon,  III. 
575  ff.  —  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  Luther  was  the  restorer  of  Bible 
study  not  in  form,  but  in  spirit.  Cf.  J.  G.  Pfeiffer,  De  revocato  in  acad.  chr. 
per  L.  studio  hihl,  J.  1740  ;  A.  M.  Runge,  De  L.  ss.  II.  interprete,  Vit.  1770  ; 
L.  T.  Gerold,  Luther  considcre'  comme  exc'gete,  Str.  1866  ;  Jul.  Soury,  Hist, 
de  la  preparation  excge'tique  de  Luther,  P.  1871.  [A  few  of  the  later  biogra- 
phies of  Luther  are  :  J.  Kostlin,  Martin  Luther's  Leben  u.  Schriften,  Elberf. 
1875,  2  vols.,  abridged,  in  one  vol.,  Leipz.  1882  ;  Tulloch,  in  his  Leaders  of 
the  Reformation  ;  Plitt  and  Petersen,  L.  1883.  His  Commentary  on  the  First 
Tioenty-tioo  Psalms  translated  into  English,  Lond.  1826,  2  vols. ;  On  Galatians, 
Lond.'l838  ;   The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude,  N.  Y.  1859.] 

Ph.  Melanchthon  (f  1560),  Opera,  Wittenb.  1601,  4  vols,  fol.;  more  com- 
plete edition,  Bretschneider  and  Bindseil,  Halle,  1834  ff.,  28  vols.  4°.  On 
Matthew  and  several  Epistles,  separately  (Romans,  ed.  T.  Nickel,  1861), 
more  in  the  form  of  scholia,  and  with  moderate  use  of  dogmatics.  It  is 
well-known  that  his  famous  Loci  grew  out  of  exegetical  studies  upon  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  See  G.  T.  Strobel,  Melanchthon'' s  Verdienste  urn  die 
h.  Schr.,  Altd.  1773  ;  W.  Thilo,  Melanchthon  im  Dienste  an  h.  S.,  Berl.  1860  ; 
F.  Galle,  Charakteristik  Mel.  als  Theologen,  H.  1845.  [Biographies  by  Led- 
derhose,  Heidelb.  1847,  E.  tr.  by  Krotel,  Phila.  1855  ;  Planck,  Prceceptor 
Germani(B,  1860  ;  C.  Schmidt,  Elberf.  1801.]  C.  Cruciger,  on  John  and  Ro- 
mans, Vit.  1540  f.  separately  ;  J.  Bugenhagen  (f  1558),  Psalms,  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  Pauline  Epistles,  separately,  since  1524  ;  Justus  Jonas  (f  1555) 
Acts,  Niir.  1524.     All  together  at  Wittenberg. 

J.  Brentz,  of  Stuttgart  (f  1570),  almost  all  the  books  of  the  O.  and  N.  T., 
separately.  0pp.,  Tiib.  1575  ff.,  8  vols.  fol.  [Biography  by  Hartmann  and 
Jager,  Hamb.  1840-1842,  2  vols.,  and  by  Julius  Hartmann,  in  Vdtern  d.  luth. 
Kirche,  VI.,  Elberf.  1862.]  Victorin  Strigel,  of  Leipzig  (f  1569),  Scholia 
(Hypomnemata)  on  the  Bible  (N.  T.,  L.  1565),  in  the  interest  of  his  peculiar 
views.  See  J.  C.  T.  Otto,  De  V.  Strigelio  liberioris  mentis  in  eccles.  luth. 
vindice,  Jena,  1843  ;  Matth.  Flacius  (§  546),  Glossa  compendiaria  in  N.  T,, 
Bas.  1570,  fol.,  with  antisynergistic  polemic.  Joachim  Camerarius,  of  Leip- 
zig (t  1574),  Notatio  figurarum  sermonis,  on  the  whole  N.  T.,  1572,  2  vols. 
4°,  simply  grammatical.  Cf .  A.  W.  Ernesti,  De  Ich.  Camerario,  L.  1774. 
Nic.  Hemming,  on  the  Epistles  (L.  1572),  suspected  of  Cryptocalvinism. 


568  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

549.  Almost  identical  as  they  were  in  spirit  and  tendency, 
as  opposed  to  the  Catholic  positions,  tlie  two  sister  Reformed 
churclies,  liowever  much  a  mistaken  and  passionate  zeal  might 
separate  them,  could  not  but  have  closely-related  princiijles 
respecting  the  interpretation  and  use  of  Scripture.  Yet  there 
are  also  noteworthy  differences  between  them.  It  is  possible 
that  the  movement  which  took  its  rise  from  Zwingli,  if  it  had 
been  permitted  to  follow  out  its  first  impulse,  might  have  led 
to  a  more  independent  science  ;  but  even  the  stricter  Calvinism 
deserves  the  credit  of  having  allowed  dogmatic  prejudice  to 
have  less  influence  upon  exegesis  than  Lutheranism.  This  is 
probably  essentially  due  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  organic 
connection  between  the  Reformed  national  churches  while  in 
the  process  of  formation,  and  consequently  no  solidarity  be- 
tween their  teachers.  While  in  the  other  case  the  exegesis  and 
the  theology  in  general  proceeded  from  one  place  and  almost 
from  one  man,  and  this  unity  was  move  and  more  guarded  with 
a  zealous  and  suspicious  pedantry,  here  the  different  spirit  of 
the  peoples,  the  languages,  and  tlie  schools  was  able  to  develop 
with  considerable  more  freedom. 

Not  the  least  effective  for  the  freer  development  of  exegetical  science 
among  the  Reformed  was,  at  first,  the  example  of  Calvin  himself,  beyond 
all  question  the  greatest  exegete  of  the  century,  afterward  the  more  compre- 
hensive philological  and  archaeological  studies  of  the  Dutch,  English,  and 
French. 

F.  Lambert  of  Avignon  (f  1530),  on  the  four  books  of  the  Kings,  Minor 
Prophets,  Canticles,  Luke,  Acts,  and  Apocalypse,  separately,  mostly  at 
Strassburg,  1525  ff.,  with  leaning  toward  Zwingli's  views.  See  J.  W.  Baum, 
Franz  Lambert,  Str.  1840.  [Other  biographies,  F.  St.  Stieve,  Bresl.  1867 
(Latin)  ;  L.  Ruffet,  Par.  1873  (French).] 

U.  Zwingli  (t  1531),  on  Genesis,  Exodus,  Psalms,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the 
Gospels,  and  some  of  the  Epistles  (0pp.,  Tig.  1545,  4  vols,  fob;  ed.  Sehuler 
and  Schulthess,  1828  ff.,  8  (10)  vols.  8°).  [Biographies  by  J.  J.  Hottinger, 
Zur.  1841,  E.  tr.  Harrisburg,  1856  ;  R.  Christoffel,  Elberf.  1857,  E.  tr. 
Eduib.  1858  ;  J.  C.  Morikofer,  L.  1867-1869,  2  Pts.  ;  G.  A.  Hoff,  Par.  1882  ; 
Usteri,  Zwingli,  Ziir.  1883.]  J.  fficolampadius,  at  Basle  (f  1531),  on  the 
Prophets,  Matthew,  John,  Romans,  Hebrews,  1526  ff.,  separately.  [Herzog, 
Das  Leben  Oekolampads  u.  d.  Reformation  d.  Kirche  zu  Basel,  Bas.  1843, 
2  vols.,  and  in  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclop. ;  Hagenbach,  Oekolampads  Lehen  u. 
ausffewcihlte  Schriften,  Elberf.  1859.]  M.  Butzer  (Bucer,  Arethis  Felinus, 
t  1551 )  at  Strassburg,  Gospels  and  several  Epistles,  Str.  1527  ff.,  Bas.  1562, 
fol.  W.  F.  Capito  (Kopffel),  at  Strassburg  (f  1541),  Dictata  on  Genesis, 
Prophets,  Matthew,  etc.,  1-525  ff.,  separately.  See  J.  W.  Baum,  Capito  u. 
Butzer,  Elb.  1860  ;  J.  C.  Hoffet,  Esquisse  hiogr.  sur  Capiton,  Str.  1850.  Conr. 
Pellicanus  (Kiirschner,  of  Ruffach,  f  1556)  at  Ziirich,  on  the  greater  part 
of  the  Bible.  (0pp.,  Tig.  1532  ff.,  7  vols,  fol.)  In  conjunction  with  Leo 
Juda,  Th.  Bibliander,  and  others,  author  of  the  Ziirich  Latin  version  of  the 
Bible  of  1543.  Cf.  §  472.  F.  Bresch,  Esquisse  biogr.  sur  C.  Pell,  Str. 
1870. 

John  Calvin  (f  1564),  Opera,  Amst.  1671,  9  vols,  fol.;  more  complete 
edition,  Baum,  Cunitz,  and  Reuss,  Br.  1863  ff.,  4°,  still  incomplete  [to  1882, 


THE  REFORMERS  — CALVINISTIC.  569 

23  vols.].  Commentaries  on  the  N.  T.,  except  tlie  Apocalypse,  and  the  more 
important  books  of  the  O.  T.  Pentateuch,  Psahus,  Prophets,  1539  ff., 
separately  ;  of  many  of  his  commentaries  there  are  also  contemporaneous 
French  editions.  New  mamial  edition,  N.  T.,  Genesis,  and  Psalms,  Halle 
and  Berlin,  11  vols.  8°,  1831  ff.  ;  French,  N.  T.,  1854,  4  vols.  [E.  tr.  of 
Calvin's  works  by  the  Calvin  Translation  Society,  Edinb.  1842-53,  52  vols.] 
Cf .  beside  his  biographers,  Tholuck,  Die  Verdienste  Calvin'' s  als  A  usleger  der 
h.  Schr.,  in  his  Vermischte  Schriften,  Pt.  II.;  Ed.  Reuss,  Calvin  considcre  comme 
exe'yete  (Revue,  VI.  223)  ;  D.  G.  Esclier,  De  Calvino  II.  N.  T.  liistoricum  in- 
terprete,  Traj.  1840  ;  A.  Vesson,  Calvin  exe'gete,  Mont.  1855.  [T.  H.  Dyer, 
Life  of  Calvin,  Lond.  1849  ;  F.  Bungener,  Calvin,  Par.  1862,  E.  tr.  Edinb. 
1863  ;  E.  Stiihelin,  Johannes  Calvin,  Elberf.  18G3,  2  vols.  ;  F.  W.  Kamp- 
schulte,  Johann  Calvin,  seine  Kirche  u.  sein  Staat  in  Genf  L.  1869,  I. 
(unfinished)  ;  Th.  McCrie,  The  Early  Years  of  John  Calvin,  Lond.  1880  ; 
A.  Roget,  VEglise  et  Vetat  a  Geneve  de  vivant  Calvin,  Gen.  1877.] 

H.  BuUinger  (f  1575),  at  Ziirich,  on  the  whole  N.  T.,  Tig.  1554,  fol.,  before 
separately.  [Biographies  by  C.  Pestalozzi,  1858  ;  R.  Christoffel,  1875.  See 
also  G.  R.  Zimmermann,  Die  ziiricher  Kirche  und  ihrer  Antistes,  Ziir.  1877.] 
W.  Musculus,  at  Berne  (f  1563),  on  Genesis,  Matthew,  John,  and  Paul,  Bas. 
1548  ff.,  separately.  By  some  reckoned  among  the  Lutherans.  [Biography 
by  C.  W.  Spieker,  Frankf.  am  O.  1858.] 

Seb.  Chastillon  (f  1563),  at  Basle,  a  Latin  version  (1551),  which  gave 
offense  by  its  affected  classic  elegance  (yet  very  often  reprinted  down  into 
the  eighteenth  century),  with  notes.  Cf.  §  487.  Augn.  Marlorat,  at  Paris 
(t  1562),  N.  T.  catholica  expositio  ecclesiastica,  P.  1561  f.  (also  Genesis, 
Psalms,  Isaiah),  a  Protestant  catena.  See  C.  D.  Kroniayer,  Etude  sur  A, 
Marlorat,  Str.  1851.  Theod.  de  Beze  (f  1605),  Latin  version  and  notes  in 
his  edition  of  tlie  N.  T.  (§  403).  See  J.  W.  Baum,  Th.  Beza,  L.  1843  ff., 
Pts.  I.,  II.  [untinished,  extending  only  to  1563  ;  H.  Heppe,  Theodor  Beza, 
Leben  u.  ausgewdhlte  Schriften,  Elberf.  1861]. 

550.  But  a  particular  circumstance  came  in  to  cause  a  very 
wide  practical  divergence  between  the  two  churches  in  their 
interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  Reformed  theologians  kept 
their  eyes  open  to  the  historically  given  point  of  view  of  the 
biblical  writers,  especially  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  did  not  attempt,  like  the  Lutherans,  to  extort 
the  gospel  doctrines  directly  from  the  letter  at  all  costs.  But 
for  this  very  reason,  in  order  not  to  allow  these  doctrines  to 
suffer,  they  had  less  antipathy  toward  the  allegorical  interpre- 
tation, and  in  particular  brought  the  typical  application  of  the 
history,  doctrine,  and  laws  of  Isi"ael  increasingly  into  favor,  so 
that  finally  this  often  prevailed  over  everj^thing  else.  The 
Swiss  and  Germans  were  long  occupied  almost  solely  in  this 
field;  the  Dutch,  English,  and  French  did  not  fall  back  into 
line  until  later,  nowhere  without  some  peculiar  character  and 
some  gain  for  science. 

Calvin  and  his  followers  were  not  least  obnoxious  to  the  Lutherans  on 
account  of  their  freer  treatment  of  many  current  proof  passages,  especially 
Messianic,  e.  g.,  in  the  Psalms,  which  were  chiefly  historically  interpreted, 
and  in  any  case  typically  or  only  partially  or  by  accommodation  referred  to 
Christ  ;  see  Aeg.  Hunnius,  Calvinus  judaizans,  Vit.  1593,  and  several  other 
subsequent  controversial  writings  (against  him,  D.  Pareus,  at  Heidelberg  ; 


670  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

for  fuller  account  see  Budcleus,  Isag.,  1062)  ;  R.  Montacutius,  Origg.  eccL, 
I.  310  :  Calvinus  tela  manibus  alhletarum  pro  divinitate  Christi  expositlonibus 
suis  excutere  non  injuria  interdum  dicitur.  J.  F.  Mayer,  Bibl.  bibl.,  1709,  p.  85. 
Walch,  Bibl.  theoL,  IV.  413,  still  says  without  commeut :  C.  oracula  de  trini- 
tate  et  messia  ad  ynentem  Jud.  et  Socin.  exposuit. 

551.  In  the  Catholic  Church  Scripture  interpretation  made 
no  progress  in  the  time  of  the  Reformation  in  the  direction  of 
Erasmus ;  indeed,  his  tendency  was  essentially  foreign  from  it 
and  must  necessarily  have  led  it  to  a  freedom  unknown  even 
in  the  Protestant  ranks.  The  power  of  circumstances  and  the 
exigencies  of  controversj'-  naturally  brought  into  use  methods 
simihir  to  those  current  among  the  dissenting  parties.  The 
manifold  sense  of  Scripture,  out  of  respect  for  the  Fathers, 
was  not  expressly  denied,  indeed  was  even  commended,  but  was 
much  more  rarely  actually  sought  for  and  studied,  and  in 
course  of  time  came  to  coincide  with  the  Calvinistic  typology. 
The  Catholic  theory,  which  claimed  for  the  Church  the  pos- 
session of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  only  authoritative  interpreter, 
apparently  imposed  much  stricter  liinitations  upon  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  individual  than  the  Protestant.  But  in  reality 
there  was  no  difference  in  this  respect.  There  was  really 
freedom  only  in  those  points,  constantly  growing  fewer,  upon 
which  no  orthodoxy  had  been  formed,  among  the  Catholics, 
consequently,  even  in  very  essential  matters.  The  exegetes 
themselves,  during  this  and  the  following  period,  cannot  be 
classified  by  methods  and  principles,  but  simply  by  their  con- 
fessions. 

The  Catholic  expositors  are  at  least  as  numerous  as  their  opponents,  but 
have  little  that  is  peculiar,  and  are  still  very  much  dependent  upon  their 
predecessors.  Looser  ideas  of  inspiration,  particularly  among  the  Jesuits, 
made  up  to  them  whatever  of  liberty  was  taken  away  by  ecclesiastical 
authority.  They  really  ran  less  risk  of  being  branded  as  heretics  by  their 
fellows  than  the  Protestant  expositors. 

The  mediaeval  theory  of  mystical  interpretation  (Sautes  Pagninus,  Domin- 
ican at  Lucca,  Isagogce  ad  mysticos  S.  S.  sensus  II.  X  VIII.,  Col.  1540,  f ol.  ; 
Sixtus  Senensis,  Bibl.  s.,  III.)  was  unavailable  for  controversial  purposes, 
and  from  lack  of  leisure  was  very  little  practiced.  Pagninus'  Latin  version 
of  the  O.  T.  (§  481),  founded  upon  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew 
lang\iage,  was  much  used  by  Protestants  also  (§  474). 

During  the  age  of  the  Reformation  proper  there  were  but  very  few 
Catholic  exegetes  who  accomplished  anything  to  carry  their  names  down  to 
posterity  ;  among  them  the  Parisian  theologians,  J.  Gagney,  scholia  on  the 
N.  T.  (P.  1539  and  freq.),  after  CEcumenius  ;  J.  Arboreus,  on  Solomon,  the 
Gospels,  Paul,  together,  P.  1551,  2  vols,  fol.;  C.  d'Espence,  on  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  P.  15(51,  with  anti-Romish  excursuses  on  discipline  ;  C.  Guilliaud, 
Collationes  on  John,  Paul,  and  the  Catholic  Epistles,  P.  1543  f . ;  but  especially 
F.  Vatablus  (Watebled  or  Gastebled,  f  1547),  scholarly  notes  on  the  O.  T., 
valued  even  by  Protestants,  and  received  into  the  Critici  sacri  (§  567).  [See 
on  Vatablus  Schaft'-Herzog  EncycL,  sub  voce.]  Likewise  the  notes  which 
Isid.  Clarius,  Benedictine  at  Brescia  (f  1555),  appended  to  his  revised  Latin 
version  (§  481). 


COUNCIL   OF  TRENT.  671 

Among  the  Franciscans  the  following  were  prominent,  among  others  :  Jo. 
Ferus,  on  tlie  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.,  Matthew,  John,  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  1536  it'.  ;  F.  Titelmann,  paraphrastic  Elucidationes  on  the  poetic 
books  of  the  O.  T.  and  most  of  the  New,  1532  if.,  both  frequently  reprinted  ; 
Nic.  Zeger,  of  Louvain,  Scholia  in  N.  T.,  Col.  1553. 

Against  Cajetanus  wrote  Ambr.  Cathariniis  (i.  e.,  Lancelot  Polit),  on  the 
Epistles,  Rome,  1546  and  f req. ;  Dom.  de  Soto,  on  the  Romans,  Antw.  1550. 
On  the  same  Epistle,  Jac.  Sadolet,  Cardinal  and  Bishop  of  Carpentras,  Lyons, 
1535,  with  anti-Augustiuiau  polemic. 

552.  The  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  introduced  no 
change,  either  for  the  better  or  for  the  worse,  into  Catholic 
exegesis.  This  assembly  held  fast  on  this  point,  as  on  all 
others,  to  the  principles  already  long  in  force,  and  introduced 
no  new  limitations,  although  it  in  many  ways  reaffirmed  the 
existing  ones.  But  what  accomplished  as  much  for  the  unan- 
imity of  Catholic  theologians  as  any  decrees  could  do,  was  the 
necessity  of  standing  together  and  defending  themselves  by 
united  power  against  an  opponent  to  whom  too  little  attention 
had  been  paid  at  the  first.  The  growing  discord  between  the 
Protestant  ecclesiastical  parties  commended  this  union  still 
more,  and  polemic  centred  about  the  taunt  that  the  heretics, 
having  forsaken  the  only  sure  guide,  were  now  following  their 
own  ignis  fatuus.  Unfortunately  there  came  a  time  when  the 
battle  was  fought  with  other  weapons  than  those  of  the  mind, 
and  when  even  the  war  of  words  had  little  biblical  basis. 
Science  languished  in  both  camps,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  say 
whether  the  sword  or  scholasticism  did  it  the  more  injury. 

Condi,  trident.,  Sess.  IV.  (§  482)  .  .  .  decernit  ut  nemo  suce  prudentice 
innixus  in  rebus  Jidei  et  morum  .  .  .  S.  S.  ad  suos  sensus  contorquens,  contra  eum 
sensum  quern  tenuit  et  tenet  sancta  mater  Ecclesia,  cujus  est  judicare  de  vero 
sensu  et  interprelatione  ss.  SS.,  aut  etiam  contra  unanimem  consensum  Patrum, 
ipsam  S.  S.  interpretari  audeat.  .  .  . 

This  decree  forms  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  Catholic  hermeneutics  ; 
R.  Bellarminus,  Cardinal  and  Jesuit  (f  1621),  De  verba  Dei  II.  IV.  (0pp., 
Col.  1620,  I.)  ;  Jac.  Gretser  (Jesuit  at  Ingolstadt,  f  1624),  U7ide  scis  kutic 
vel  ilium  esse  sincerum  et  legitimum  S.  sensum?  (0pp.,  Ratisb.  1736,  VIII.)  ; 
J.  Martianay,  French  Benedictine  (f  1717),  Traite  methodique  ou  maniere 
d'expliquer  VEcriture,  P.  1704,  and  Melhode  sacree  pour  expliquer  I'Ecr., 
P.  17l6  ;  Augu.  Calmet,  Benedictine  and  Abbot  at  Senones  in  the  Vosges 
(t  1757),  Bibliotheque  sacree,  P.  1722,  in  the  Introduction  ;  M.  Gerbert, 
Benedictine  at  St.  Bias  in  the  Black  Forest,  Principia  theol.  exegeticce,  1757. 
The  mystic  sense  is  always  maintained,  as  useful,  however,  not  for  argument, 
but  for  edification,  possibly  even  as  undesigned. 

Most  was  done  in  the  field  of  exegesis  by  the  Jesuits,  whose  works,  often 
reprinted,  cast  all  others  into  the  shade  during  the  seventeenth  century  ; 
among  them  the  Portuguese  Emm.  Sa  (f  1596),  short  Notationes  iii  totam. 
S.  S.,  Antw.  1598  ;  before,  separately.  Scholia  in  Evv. ;  the  Spaniard  J.  Mal- 
donato  (f  1583),  on  the  Psalms,  Solomon,  and  the  Major  Prophets,  at  first 
separately,  together,  P.  1643  ;  but  especially  Comm.  in  I V.  evv.,  Pont  k 
Mousson,  1596,  2  vols,  fol.,  and  very  f req. ;  also  Mayence,  1840  ft'. ;  [see  I.  M. 
Prat,  Maldonat  et  V  Uniuersite  de  Paris  au  X  VI.  siecle,  Paris,  1856  ;  SchafE- 


672  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Herzog,  Art.  Maldonatus'] ;  Alph.  Salmero  (f  1597),  Commentaria  ad  hist,  evan- 
gelicam,  Madr.  1597  fi.,  10  vols,  fol.,  the  last  live  of  which  extend  over  the  Acts, 
Epistles,  and  Apocalypse  ;  J.  Mariana  (f  1024),  Scholia  brevia  in  V.  et  N.  T., 
Madr.  1619  [see  Schalf-Herzog]  ;  Ant.  de  Escobar  y  Mendoza  (f  1GG9), 
V.  et  N.  T.  liter,  et  moral,  comm.  illustr.,  Lyons,  1052,  9  vols.  i'ol. ;  [see  Schaii'- 
Herzog]  ;  the  Lorrainer  N.  Serarius  (f  1609),  on  the  Pentateuch,  the  his- 
torical books  of  the  O.  T.,  and  the  Catholic  Epistles  ;  the  Dutchiuau  W.  Est 
(t  1613),  a  valuable  exposition  of  the  Epistles  in  the  Aiigustiuian  spirit, 
Douay,  1014,  fol.,  and  very  freq.,  also  Mayence,  1841  ft'. ;  F.  Lucas  of  Brligge 
(t  1629),  on  the  Gospels,  Autw.  1000  ;  Jac.  Tirinus  (f  1030),  ou  the  whole 
Bible,  Antw.  1032,  and  very  freq.,  with  and  without  text,  2  or  3  vols.,  fol.  ; 
Cornelius  von  Stein  (a  Lapide,  f  1037),  a  diffuse  compilation  on  the  whole 
Bible,  except  Job  and  Psalms,  from  1614  on  separately,  together  Autw.  1664, 
30  vols.  fol.  and  freq.,  full  of  allegories  and  legends  (see  G.  IL  Gcitz,  De 
Corn,  a  Lapide  commentariis,lj.  1699);  the  Italian  J.  St.  Menochius  (f  1055), 
Brevis  expositio  sensus  lit.  totius  Scr.  ex  optimis  auctoribus  collecta,  Col.  1030, 
3  vols.  fol. 

The  most  important  (especially  Lyra,  Sa,  Tirinus,  Est,  Menochius,  Gag- 
ney)  collected  in  J.  de  la  Haye,  Biblia  magna,  P.  1643,  5  vols,  fol.;  Biblia 
maxima,  P.  1060,  19  vols.  fol. 

The  best-known  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  are  the  Jesuits 
J.  Hardouin  (f  1729),  Comm.  in  N.  T.,  Hag.  1741,  fol.,  and  Is.  J.  Berruyer, 
Hist,  du  peuple  de  Dieu,  P.  1728,  13  vols.,  and  freq.,  the  former  paradoxical 
(§  49),  the  latter  venturesome  and  oft'ensive.  But  particularly  the  above- 
mentioned  Dom.  Calmet's  Comm.  litteral  sur  la  bible,  P.  1707  ft.,  23  vols.  4°, 
or  1724  ff.,  8  vols,  fol.,  also  in  Latin,  with  many  excursuses,  also  separately 
collected  ;  the  latter  in  German  :  C.  bibl.  Untersuchungen,  with  notes,  by  J. 
L.  von  Mosheim,  Brem.  1744,  G  vols.  8°  (Fange,  Vie  du  R.  P.  Dom.  Calmet, 
Sen.  1763.) 

See  in  general  C.  Werner,  Geschichte  der  kath.  Theol.  seit  dem  Trienter 
Concil,  Miin.  1866,  a  work,  however,  which  is  not  very  full  upon  the  biblical 
sciences. 

553.  For  into  the  Protestant  party  also,  scarcely  as  yet 
moved  in  this  direction,  there  had  been  penetrating  since  the 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century  an  irresistible  demand  for  stabil- 
ity. The  followers  of  the  Reformers  tlioiight  they  could  con- 
fine and  control  by  formulas  and  official  seals  a  revolution  in 
the  realm  of  mind  whose  original  force  none  measured,  whose 
final  goal  none  perceived.  In  the  Lutheran  Church  the  stag- 
nation came  in,  and  victoriously,  with  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord ;  in  the  Reformed,  somewhat  later,  with  the  decrees  of 
Dort,  but  as  the  decision  of  a  controversy  between  freedom 
and  slavery  in  the  realm  of  Scripture  interpretation.  The  more 
outspoken  teachers  declared  the  work, completed,  and  contented 
themselves  for  a  long  time  witli  giving  to  their  already  estab- 
lished dogmas  the  necessary  scientific  form  with  the  aid  of  a 
by-gone  dialectics.  This  form  was  unquestionably,  in  its  way, 
a  strong,  complete,  and  thoroughly  thought  out  one,  but  it 
more  and  more  stifled  all  warmlh  of  life,  estranged  the  schools 
from  life,  and  sealed  the  Bible  from  the  people  anew. 

In  judging  of  this  preliminary  result  of  the  Reformation,  one  should  cer- 
tauily  disabuse  himself  of  the  idea  that  it  was  a  departui-e  from  its  natural 


THE  CONFESSIONAL  HERMENEUTICS.  673 

path,  or  a  reaction.  The  Reformation  had  been  carried  on  from  the  begin- 
ning, with  and  without  tlie  aid  of  its  promoters,  in  the  sphere  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  political,  and  consequently  of  social  matters  ;  its  confessions  were 
not  individual  manifestations  of  the  theological  mind  but  recoixls  of  vast 
new  organisms,  and  thus  dogmatic  theology  itself  became  an  element  in 
public  social  life,  and  a  much  more  living  one  than  it  ever  had  been  in  the 
Catholic  Church.  The  individual  might  reflect  upon  what  was  officially  laid 
down  ;  there  was  no  neutral  ground  at  his  disposal. 

The  best  known  theorists  are  :  W.  Frantz,  at  Wittenberg  (f  1628),  Trac- 
tatus  theol.  de  interpr.  max'une  legitima,  1G19  ;  claiming  to  be  purely  grammat- 
ical exposition,  in  reality  mostly  anti-Calvinistic  polemic  ;  J.  Gerhard,  at 
Jena  (f  1637),  Loci  theol.,  1622,  9  vols,  fol.,  ed.  Cotta,  Tiib.  1762  if.,  20  vols. 
4°;  also  a  special  essay,  De  legitima  S.  S.  interpr.,  Jena,  1610;  [E.  R.  Fischer, 
Vita  J.  Gerhardi,  Gotha,  1723]  ;  Sal.  Glass,  at  Jena  (f  1656),  Philologia 
sacra,  1623,  and  freq.  (also  1776-1796,  by  Datlie  and  13auer,  his  temper ibus 
accommodata),  contains,  beside  the  hermeneutics,  a  grammar,  rhetoric,  and 
logic  of  the  Scriptures,  and  maintains  a  se7isus  duplex,  literalis  et  mysticus,  the 
former  prior  naiura  et  ordine,  the  latter  prior  dignitate,  comprehending  al- 
legories, types,  and  parables  ;  J.  C.  Dannhawer,  at  Strassburg  (f  1666),  /fZea 
honi  interpretis  et  malitiosi  calumniator  is,  1642  (in  which  the  Bible  goes  to 
school  to  Aristotle),  and  Hermeneutica  saa-a,  1654  ;  A.  Pfeiffer,  at  Lubeck 
(t  1698),  Hermeneutica  sacra,  1684,  and  Thesaurus  hermen.,  1704  ;  J.  Olea- 
rius,  Elementa  herm.  s.,  L.  1699  ;  A.  E.  Mirus,  Fragen  aus  der  Herm.  sacra. 
Dr.  1712. 

The  best  known  among  the  Reformed  is  A.  Rivet,  at  Leyden  (f  1651), 
Isagoge  ad  S.  S.  (§  17),  ch.  xiv.  £f. 

554.  Theological  exegesis,  which  had  done  so  noble  service 
while  it  was  used  to  defend  the  fundamental  thought  of  the 
Reformation  against  Catholicism,  now,  when  it  concerned  it- 
self with  scholastic  subtilties,  sank  to  the  level  of  a  mere  ac- 
quisition of  dogmatic  proof-texts.  These  were  taken  up  like 
legal  documents,  according  to  number,  value,  and  order ;  their 
application  was  a  cardinal  point  of  doctrine,  and  it  was  of  im- 
portance to  increase  their  force  by  obtaining  a  similar  refer- 
ence from  as  many  other  passages  as  possible.  The  number 
of  passages  thus  officially  explained  continually  grew  greater. 
For  the  jewel  of  the  symbolic  faith  was  jealously  guarded,  and 
the  interpretation  which  served  it  became  more  unchangeable 
than  even  its  Elzevir  text.  The  appeal  to  an  inner  witness  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  guaranty  of  its  truth  sounds  like  a  grim 
irony.  There  was  even  a  Lutheran  patristic  set  up,  and  what- 
ever Doctor  Martin  had  written,  his  Bible  at  the^  head,  in 
which  he  had  found  room  for  improvement  to  the  time  of  his 
death,  became  an  inviolable  rule  and  relic. 

G.  J.  Plank,  Gesch.  der  protest.  Theologie  von  der  Concord ienformel  bis  in 
die  Mitte  des  achtzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  Gott,  1831  ;  A.  Tholuck,  Der  Geist 
der  hither.  Theologen  Wittenhergs  im  siehzehnten  Jahrh.,  Hamb.  1852  ;  I.  A. 
Dorner,  Gesch.  der  prot.  Theol,  M.  1867,  p.  421  if.  ;  Gust.  Frank,  Gesch.  der 
prot.  Theol.  (1862  ft'.),  II.  _ 

While  some  sought  to  make  the  list  of  dicta  prohantia  complete,  others  set 
themselves  to  deduce  the  whole  system  from  some  few,  so  that  each  biblical 


57-4  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

author  discovered  some  locus  for  himself,  and  set  it  forth  with  all  his  scho- 
lastic apparatus.  The  most  celebrated  piece  of  work  of  tliis  kiud  is  Seb. 
Schmidt's  (at  Strassburg,  f  1696)  Collegium  biblicum  prius  (O.  T.)  et  poste- 
rius  (N.  T.),  Arg.  1671,  aud  freq.,  2  vols.  4°.  The  O.  T.  in  his  view  was  as 
relevant  as  the  New. 

Conversely,  attempts  were  made  to  discover  the  whole  system  in  each  in- 
dividual author  :  J.  H.  Majus  (at  Giessen,  t  1719),  Theologia  jeremiana, 
1696  ;  Abr.  Hinckelmann  (at  Hamburg,  f  1695),  Jobi  theologia  evangelica, 
1687;  J.  G.  Dorsch  (at  Strassburg  and  Rostock  ;  f  1659),  Synopsis  theol. 
Zachariance,  1637;  B.  Bebel,  at  Strassburg,  Theologia  JDojiielis ;  Joannis 
Bapt.  ex  Matth.  Hi.  2  ;  Joannea  ex  Ev.  xx.  31,  1683  f.  ;  G.  H.  Gotze  (at  Lii- 
beck,  t  1728),  Theologia  Elisabethce  ex  Luc.  i.  ^1  sqq.,  1706  ;  F.  Woken, 
Epitome  theol.  ex  ep.  ad  Titum  collecta,  L.  1727,  and  many  others.  Also  (V. 
E.  Loscher)  Entwurf  einer  vollst.  Jesus-  Theologie  (supposed  to  mean  Theol- 
ogy of  Jesus);  Unsch.  Nachr.,  11  ll-Vl\Z, passim ;  J.  Deutschmanu,  at  Wit- 
tenberg (t  1706),  Theologia  primi  theologi  Adami  vere  lutherani,  Yit.  1689. 

On  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  in  the  conception  of  inspiration 
cf .  Tholuck,  I.  c,  p.  253  ff.  —  Luther's  current  name  Megalander. 

555.  Practical  exegesis  consisted  not  so  much  in  arriving  by- 
scientific  methods  at  the  meaning  of  dogmatically  applicable 
passages,  as  in  handling  skillfully,  upon  their  occurrence,  the 
customary  polemic,  in  knowing  where  to  find  an  effective  text 
against  Papist  or  Calvinist,  or  in  knowing  how,  when  some- 
thing of  the  kind  was  found  by  one's  opponent,  to  parry  the 
thrust  by  exegetical  fencing.  The  polemic  was  petty,  under- 
handed, and  spiritless.  With  increasing  strictness  in  the  idea 
of  inspiration,  which  was  finally  extended  to  the  vowel-points 
and  accents,  was  combhied  one-sided  overestimation  of  philo- 
logical knowledge ;  with  the  growinor  weakness  of  the  historic 
sight  an  astonisliing  uncertainty  in  the  conceptions  of  allegory 
and  typology.  Restraint  corrupted  taste  also ;  overawed  sci- 
ence sought  for  itself  a  field  that  was  still  neutral,  which  was 
scarcely  to  be  found  any  longer,  and  treated  insignificant  mat- 
ters with  the  ridiculous  apparatus  of  a  pedantic  learning. 

The  better  kno\vn  names  out  of  a  great  number  are,  among  the  Lutherans  : 
M.  Chemnitz,  at  Brunswick  (f  1586)  [C.  G.  H.  Leutz,  Dr.  Martin  Chemnitz, 
Gotha,  1866  ;  H.  Hachfeld,  Martin  Chemnitz,  L.  1867],  a  Harmony  of  the 
Gospels,  ^vith  commentary  and  controversial  excursuses,  continued  by  P. 
Leyser,  at  Dresden  (f  1610),  by  whom  also  an  Analysis  theol.  et  scholastica 
on  Galatians  (L.  1616),  and  completed  by  J.  Gerhard  (§  553) ;  at  first  in 
parts  ;  together.  Gen.  1645,  foL,  aud  freq.  (cf.  §  403).  By  the  last  and 
others  a  series  of  works  on  separate  Epistles  in  "  poiismatic  "  manner  (sum- 
marizing didactic  results),  Jena,  1641  S. 

Xic.  Selnekker,  at  Leipzig  (f  1592),  on  Genesis,  Psalms,  Prophets,  and 
Paul,  separately,  mth  loci  communes.  Dav.  Chytraeus,  at  Rostock  (f  1600), 
on  the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.,  some  of  the  Prophets,  Matthew,  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  Romans,  and  the  Apocal^-pse,  0pp.  exeg.,  Vit.  1590,  2  vols., 
fol.  ;  Aeg.  Humiius,  at  Wittenberg  (f  1603),  began  a  commentary  07'  the 
whole  N.  T.,  of  which,  however,  only  Matthew,  John,  Paul,  and  1  John  were 
completed  ;  edited,  together  with  D.  Arcularius  on  the  Acts  and  J.  Winck- 
elmann's  Mark,  Luke,  James,  Peter,  aud  Apocalvpse,  and  completed  by  J. 
H.  Feustking  under  the  title  Thesaurus  evanqelicus  .  .  .  apostolicus,  Vit. 
1706,  2  vols.  fol. 


CONFESSIONAL  —  LUTHERAN  —  REFORMED.      575 

F.  Balduin,  at  Wittenberg  (f  1627),  among  others,  on  the  Pauline  Epis- 
tles, at  first  separately,  together  1644,  and  freq.,  in  quo  multiplices  commo~ 
nefactiones  e  textu  eruuntur  turn  variis  qucestt.  controversis  fundamenta  sancB  doc- 
trince  monstrantur  j  Erasmus  Schmid,  at  Wittenberg  (f  1637),  Opus  sacrum, 
translation  and  notes  on  the  N.  T.,  Nor.  1658,  fol.  ;  J.  G.  Dorsch  (§  554), 
Commentary  on  the  Gospels  and  several  Epistles  with  Hypomnemata  apodic- 
tico-analytico-exegetica  ;  G.  Olearius,  at  Halle  (f  1715),  Biblia-theoretico-prac- 
tica,  1676  ;  M.  Geier,  at  Leipzig  and  Dresden  (f  1680),  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Daniel. 

Abr.  Calovius,  at  Wittenberg  (f  1688),  Biblia  illustrata,  a  controversial 
catena  (mostly  against  Grotius),  the  sum  of  Lutheran  biblical  science,  Frankf. 
1672,  4  vols.  fol.  ;  Seb.  Schmidt  (§  554),  on  Genesis,  the  historical  books  of 
the  O.  T.,  Job,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  John,  some  Epistles,  etc.,  separately;  Latin 
Bible  (1696,  and  freq.)  in  which,  by  means  of  brief  insei-ted  parentheses, 
the  orthodox  interpretation  is  naively  and  concisely  summed  up.  An  inter- 
esting Judicium  of  the  Strassburg  faculty  upon  the  work  is  to  be  found  in 
Clodius'  edition,  1740. 

The  Bible  annotated  at  the  command  of  Duke  Ernst  of  Saxony  by  certain 
sound  theologians  (among  them  J.  Gerhard,  S.  Maior,  M.  Dilherr,  S.  Glass, 
and  others  of  Jena),  Niirnb.  1641,  fol.,  and  freq.,  the  so-called  Weimar 
Bible,  had  almost  official  authority;  rather  popular  than  scholarly.  T.  Das- 
sov,  De  s.  codicis  interpret ibus  vinariensibus,  Vit.  1694  ;  J.  W.  Schneider,  De 
hibl.  vinar.  memoria  seculari,  Jena,  1741  ;  Unsch.  Nachr.,  1704,  p.  398  ;  1708, 
p.  103  ;  1714,  p.  553  ;  1744,  p.  411. 

Among  less  strictly  orthodox  contemporaries,  G.  Calixtus,  at  Helmstedt 
(f  1656),  notwithstandmg  his  importance  in  the  field  of  theology,  is  unim- 
portant as  a  commentator  {Scliolce  propheticce,  Acts,  Romans,  Corinthians, 
etc.,  mostly  posthumous  imiversity  lectures).  See  E.  Henke,  G.  Calixtus  u. 
seine  Zeit,  Halle,  1853,  I.  261. 

Especially  characteristic  is  the  literature  of  the  academic  dissertations,  the 
large  majority  of  which  belong  here,  inasmuch  as  they  are  occupied  with 
scholastic  dogmatics  as  applied  to  some  one  passage  of  Scripture.  The 
writers  most  often  chose  those  passages  which,  actually  or  apparently,  were 
opposed  to  the  system,  and  attempted  to  explain  them.  This  method  main- 
tained itself  here  much  longer  than  in  larger  works  ;  in  some  universities, 
€.  g.,  Tiibingen  and  Strassburg,  till  long  after  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  They  also  occupied  themselves,  in  the  most  insipid  way,  with  the 
mmutine  of  Biblical  Archaeology  (§  565). 

We  mention  comparatively  few  of  the  Reformed  here  because  most  of 
them  will  appear  in  other  groups  farther  on  ;  among  dogmatic  expositors 
belong  J.  Piscator,  at  Herborn  (f  1625),  on  the  whole  Bible,  separately, 
1601  ff.,  together,  1643,  4  vols.  fol.  ;  see  Steubing,  in  Illgen's  Zeiischr., 
1841,  IV.  ;  D.  Tossanus  (Toussaint),  at  Hanau  (f  1629),  on  the  N.  T.  1604  ; 
D.  Pareus,  at  Heidelberg  (f  1622),  many  books  of  the  O.  and  N.  T. ;  0pp., 
Frankf.  1628  ;  M.  Amyraut,  at  Saumur  (f  1664),  on  Psalms,  John,  Acts, 
Epistles  ;  see  C.  E.  Saigey,  AI.  Amyraut,  Str.  1849,  and  in  the  Strassb.  Revue, 
V.  178;  also  A.  Schweizer  in  Herzog's  Encykl. ;  F.  Gomarus,  at  Leyden 
(t  1641),  on  the  Gospels,  etc.  ;  0pp.,  Amst.  1644,  3  vols.  fol.  ;  J.  H.  Hei- 
degger, at  Ziirich  (f  1697),  Exercitt.  hiblica,  etc. 

H.  A.  Roell,  at  Utrecht  (f  1718),  on  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  1715,  pe- 
culiar on  account  of  the  influence  of  the  Cartesian  philosophy  upon  his  exe- 
gesis. F.  A.  Lampe,  at  Utrecht  and  Bremen  (f  1729),  on  John,  1724,  3 
vols.  4°,  with  a  leaning  toward  pietism,  notwithstanding  a  disagreeably  an- 
alytic form. 

556.  Exegesis  was  thus  everywhere  under  the  same  abjeet 
servitude  to  the  scholastic  dogmatics.     But  nowhere  did  the 


576  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

arbitrariness  of  scholasticism  appear  more  glaringly  than 
among  that  party  which  had  most  completely  broken  away 
from  all  connection  with  traditional  Christianity,  —  the  Socin- 
ians.  Even  they  were  unwilling  to  do  without  the  testimony 
of  the  Bible  to  their  theological  system.  They  asserted  the 
necessity  of  agreement  between  Scripture  and  reason,  but 
practiced  exegesis  in  a  one-sided  manner,  so  as  to  foi-ce  the 
Scriptures  to  support  doctrines  propounded  almost  independ- 
ently of  them.  The  farther  these  doctrines  departed  in  essen- 
tial particulars  from  the  apostolic  preaching,  the  more  au- 
daciously they  perverted  the  Word.  Their  exegesis  often 
appears  like  the  result  of  incomprehensible  blindness  or  un- 
candid  trickery,  but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  that  of  the 
Orthodox  was  only  saved  by  their  adherence  to  the  traditional 
faith  of  the  Church,  not  by  the  truth  of  its  fundamental  princi- 
ples, from  equally  surprising,  if  not  equally  harsh,  procedure. 

This  party  has  nowhere  propounded  any  hermeneutical  theory.  In  gen- 
eral, it  acknowledges  the  Protestant  principle  of  the  simple  grammatical 
sense  of  Scripture,^  but  at  the  same  time  holds  a  looser  view  of  inspiration, 
is  very  free  with  tropes,  and  paves  the  way  for  the  theory  of  accommodation 
by  a  complete  disregard  of  the  O.  T.  (Diestel,  Die  .soc.  Anschauung  v.  A.  T. 
in  ihrer  gesch.  u.  theol.  Bedeuiung,  in  the  Stuttg.  Jahrb.,  1862,  IV.,  and  in  his 
better  known  work,  Das  A.  T.  in  der  Kirche,  p.  387  if.,  534  if. 

The  works  (mostly  exegetical)  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  are  collected  in 
the  Bibliotheca  fratrum  Polonorum  quos  unitarios  vocant,  Amst.  1656  fE.,  8 
vols.  fol.  This  work  contains  :  Faustus  Socinus,  of  Siena  (f  1604),  De  S.  S. 
auctoritatc,  and  essays  on  several  dogmatically  important  passages,  especially 
of  John  [see  Schaif-Herzog,  Art.  Socinus]  ;  J.  Crell,  of  Frauken  (f  1633), 
on  most  of  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  ;  J.  Schlichting,  of  Bucowicz  in  Poland 
(t  1601),  on  John  and  the  Epistles  ;  and  J.  L.  v.  Wolzogen,  of  Austria 
(t  1661),  on  the  Gospels.  —  Also  :  C.  Sand  (f  1680),  Interpp.  paradoxes  IV. 
evang.,  Amst.  1669  ;  S.  Przipcow  (f  1070),  on  the  Epp.,  Amst.  1692  f.  ;  D. 
Brenius,  short  scholia  on  the  Bible,  Amst.  1664  f .  ;  S.  Crell  (Artemouius, 
f  1747),  on  several  important  passages  of  John. 

C.  E.  Weismann,  Rabbulismi  exegetici partis  socin.  insigniora  specimina,  Tiib. 
1731  ;  F.  W.  Dresde,  De  fallaci  F.  Socini  II.  ss.  interpretandi  ratione,  Vit. 
1790  ;  Flatt's  Mag.,  XV.  112  ff. ;  H.  Amphoux,  Essai  sur  la  doctrine  socini- 
enne,  Str.  1850. 

The  same  or  a  closely  related  form  of  doctrine  was  still  defended  by  cer- 
tain English  exegetes  late  in  the  following  century  ;  e.  g.,  J.  Taylor,  Romans, 
Lond.  1745  ;  A.  Sykes,  Hebreios,  Lond.  1755. 

557.  Meanwhile  the  dry  scholasticism  of  the  orthodox  ex- 
position of  Scripture  led  certain  individuals  to  attempt,  with- 
out opposing  themselves  to  the  Church,  to  give  it  a  greater 
and  ahnost  poetic  fruitfulness.  The  school  of  the  Cocceians, 
which  flourished  after  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century 
in  Holland,  had  propounded  a  system  of  the  theology  of  the 
covenants,  accord hig  to  which  the  revelations  of  God  in  his- 
tory were  connected  with  one  another  by  a  kind  of  evolution. 
To  make  this  out  exegesis  was  called  upon,  thus  recognizing 


SOCINIANS  —  COC  CEIANS.  577 

again,  finally,  the  distinction  between  tlie  forms  of  faitli  and 
life  of  tlie  Old  and  New  Testaments,  although  with  the  use  of 
an  extravagant  typology.  The  search  was  not  so  much  for  a 
plurality  as  for  a  fullness  of  meaning  in  Scripture,  that  the  in- 
creasing richness  of  the  Word  might  keep  pace  with  the  re- 
quirements of  their  view  of  history,  which  was  developed  in  a 
countless  series  of  figures.  A  vast  amount  of  learning  was 
expended  upon  an  idea  which  was  no  doubt  interesting,  but 
which  got  farther  and  farther  from  the  truth  as  it  attempted 
to  go  into  details. 

J.  Coceeius  (Koch),  of  Bremen,  Professor  at  Leyclen  (f  1669,  see  Gesenius, 
in  Erscli  and  Gruber's  EncykL,  I.  18  [also  Sehaif-Herzog]),  placed  the  three 
covenants  of  God  with  men,  the  patriarchal,  the  legal,  and  the  gospel,  iu 
a  typical  relation  to  one  another  ;  so  also  the  Bible  to  Church  History,  to 
which  lie  not  only  applied  the  periods  of  development  which  had  been  dis- 
covered by  others  before  him  in  the  Apocalypse,  but  also  referred,  as  types, 
other  Old  and  New  Testanaent  narratives  ;  all  without  prejudice  to  the  Cal- 
vinistic  orthodoxy,  yet  in  reality  much  more  favorable  to  a  biblical  than  to 
the  scholastic  treatment  of  theology.     Summa  theologke  a  S.  S.  repetita,  0pp., 

VII.  ;  Summa  doctr.  de  f^xdere  ct  testamento  Dei,  ibid.  His  hermeneutic  was 
in  many  respects  more  rational  and  biblical  than  that  of  his  contemporaries 
and  opponents.  But  the  method  as  it  was  understood  and  applied,  espe- 
cially by  his  followers,  cannot  be  characterized  better  than  by  the  sentence 
by  which  it  is  comprehended  in  the  table  of  contents  to  his  works,  which, 
were  it  not  for  its  place,  might  be  regarded  as  an  epigram  ;  verba  S.  S.  sig- 
nificant id  omne  quod  possunt.  Cf.  Summa  theoL,  ch.  vi.,  xlvi.  13.  0pp., 
Amst.  1675,  and  freq.,  10  vols.  fol.  [3d  ed.,  auctior  et  emendatior,  1701]. 
They  contain  commentaries  on  most  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.  A.  v.  d. 
Flier,  De  J.  Cocceio  anti-scholastico,  Traj.  1859. 

His  principles  maintained  themselves  in  the  universities  of  Holland,  with 
varying  fortune,  carried  to  excess,  naturally,  by  his  foUov/ers,  into  the  eight- 
eenth century,  with  many  good  philologists  and  still  more  minds  of  smaller 
calibre.  Elsewhere  little  response.  (Schulthess,  Theol.  Nachr.,  1826,  III. 
388.)     Typological  treatment  of  the  Hebrew  antiquities. 

For  polemic  for  and  against  see  Schrockh,   Kirchengesch.  seit  der  Ref., 

VIII.  544  ff.  ;  Roseumiiller,  Handh.,  IV.  8  f.  ;  Walch,  Bibl.  Theol,  II.  1033  ; 
Werenfels,  0pp.,  II.  3:iS  ;  V.  Alberti,  Cartesianismus  et  Cocceianismus  Belgio 
molesti,  L.  1678  ;  (Joncourt)  Entretiens  sur  les  differentes  mtthodes  d^expliquer 
I'ecrifure,  Amst.  1707;   Unsch.  Nachr.,  1708,  p.  305  ;  1709,  p.  345. 

The  more  scholarly  of  the  Cocceians,  and  hence  still  useful,  are  Campegius 
Vitringa,  at  Franeker  (f  1722),  on  Isaiah,  Zechariah,  Epistles,  Apocalj'pse, 
and  Obss.  ss.,  which  contains,  Vl.  479,  his  hermeneutical  theory  (on  hina  T. 
de  Hase,  in  the  Bibl.  Brem.,  VI.);  J.  Braun,  at  Groningen  (f  170i>),  espe- 
cially on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  S.  van  Til,  at  Leyden  (f  1713),  on 
Matthew  and  some  of  the  Epistles.  Also  H.  Deusing,  Allegoriae.  hist,  evang., 
1711  (he  develops  modern  history  from  any  pericope  of  the  Gospels  at 
pleasure  ;  cf.  T.  de  Hase,  in  the  Bibl.  Brem.,  V.);  A.  Driessen,  De  principiis 
et  legibus  theologice  emhlematicfe  allegoricce  typicce  et  propheticce,  Traj.  1717;  J. 
d'Outrein,  J.  Marck,  F.  Burmann,  N.  Glirtler,  J.  v.  d.  Waeyen,  H.  Witse, 
and  others,  most  of  them  in  smaller  treatises  rather  than  in  larger  works. 
The  Bibliotheca  Bremensis,  1719  £f.,  8  vols.,  contains  many  contributions  and 
literary  notices  which  belong  here.  For  a  summary  of  the  results  of  this 
school,  see  Pfaff,  Hist.  litt.  theol.,  I.  94  ff. ;  Diestel,  I.  c,  p.  527  fE.,  also  in  the 
Jahrb.  der  Theol,  1865,  II. 
37 


578  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

558.  In  the  Lutheran  party  also,  though  somewhat  later, 
there  came  a  noteworthy,  but  much  more  healthful  reaction 
against  scholastic  dogmatism.  Following  the  example  of 
Spener,  the  so-called  Pietists  attempted  to  make  the  Bible 
again  subserve  practical  Christianity  and  the  edification  of  the 
people,  as  the  Reformers  had  originally  designed.  They  made 
small  account  of  the  aids  of  secular  science.  They  strove  after 
the  possession  of  spiritual  gifts,  and  in  humility  awaited  from 
the  enlightenment  of  the  inner  vision  the  knowledge  which 
they  intended  to  use  for  the  benefit  of  the  people.  Their  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture  was  not  so  much  an  aid  to  science  as 
a  devotional  exercise,  begun  and  ended  with  prayer.  Maintain- 
ing the  full  doctrine  of  strict  orthodoxy  respecting  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  and  making  it  yet  stricter  where  possi- 
ble by  a  more  strenuous  honoring  of  the  letter,  they  delighted 
to  search  its  mystical  and  typical  depths,  and  sought  the  em- 
phases of  the  divine  meaning  hidden  in  the  smallest  phrases, 
—  the  one  sect  of  all  time  which  has  found  its  highest  happi- 
ness in  the  consciousness  of  being  the  fewest  in  number  and 
the  poorest  in  spirit. 

Collegia  hiblica :  the  University  of  Halle  ;  see  A.  H.  Niemeyer,  Die  Uni- 
versitdt  Halle  nach  ihrem  Einfluss  auf  gelehrie  und  praktische  Theologie,  H, 
1817  ;  W.  Hossbaeh,  Spener  und  seine  Zeit,  2d  ed.  1853  ;  J.  Rathgeber, 
Spener  et  le  reveil  religieux,  P.  1868  ;  H.  Sclimid,  Gesch,  des  Pietismus,  Nordl. 
1863  ;  [Heppe,  1879  ;  Ritschl,  Gesch.  des  Pietismus,  1880]  ;  A.  Tholuck, 
Gesch.  des  Ilationalismus,  1865,  I. 

Ph.  J.  Spener,  a  native  of  Alsace,  preacher  at  Frankfort,  Dresden,  and 
Berlin  (f  1705),  Consil.,  I.  331  :  Indignius  mihi  videtur  si  qiiis  co  ipso  syrnbol- 
icis  lihris  nostris  contradixisse  et  perfidice  reus  esse  arguatur  quod  in  explicatione 
dicti  alicujus  nonnihil  ah  eo  sensu  dejiecteret  qui  in  aliquo  illorum  deprehen- 
ditur.  Bedenken,  III.  478  :  "  We  blame  the  Papists  for  making  the  author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures  dependent  ah  auctoritate  ecclesice.  May  the  Lord  gra- 
ciously forbid  that  we  too  should  depart  from  our  principium  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  allow  nothing  of  them  to  be  valid  except  what  is  to  be  found, 
iisdem  i^erhis,  in  our  libri  synibolici,  — still  more  that  we  should  not  interpret 
the  creeds  by  the  Scriptures  but  the  Scriptures  by  the  creeds,  and  thus  set 
up  genuine  Popery  in  the  midst  of  our  Church."  [See,  on  Spener,  Walch, 
Streitigkeiten  innerhalh  der  luth.  Kirche,  I.,  II.,  IV.,  V.  ;  Von  Canstein,  Lehens- 
heschreibung  Spener^ s,  1740  ;  Steinmetz,  in  his  edition  of  Spener's  minor 
works,  1746  ;  Hossbaeh,  Leben  Spener's,  1827,  3d  ed.  1861  ;  Knapp,  Lehen 
u.  Charakter  einiger  frommen  Manner  des  vorigen  Jahrhunderts,  1829  ;  Thilo, 
Spener  als  Katechet,  1841 ;  Wildenhahn,  Life  of  Spener,  translated  by  G.  A. 
Wenzel,  Phila.  1881.] 

The  theorists  of  the  school  (J.  J.  Breithaupt  at  Halle  (j  1732)  [G.  A. 
Francke,  Das  gesegnete  Geddchtniss  des  seligen  Breithaupt,  Halle,  1736],  In- 
stitutio  hermeneutico-homiletica,  Kiel,  1685  ;  A.  H.  Franke,  at  Halle  (f  1727), 
Manductio  ad  lectionem  S.  S.,  H.  1693  ;  Prcdectiones  hermenenticce,  1717  ;  In- 
slit,  rationem  tradens  S.  S.  in  suam  cedific.  legendi,  1723  ;  De  emphasibus  Scr., 
1698  ;  J.  Lange,  at  Halle  (f  1744),  Hermeneutica  sacra,  1733  ;  J.  J.  Ram- 
bach,  at  Giessen  (f  1735)  [Biography  by  Dan.  Biittner,  L.  1737  ;  Th.  Han- 
sen, Die  Faniilie  Rambach,  Gotha,  1875],  De  idoneo  S.  S.  interprete,  1720  ; 
Instt.  hermenenticce,  J.  1723  ;  Erlduterungen  thereof,  Giessen,  1738, 2  vols.  4°  ; 


PIETISTS.  579 

Exercitt.  herm.,  Jena,  1728)  lay  great  stress  upon  the  piety  of  the  expositor 
(passing  over  in  silence  his  docti'inal  soundness  according  to  the  creeds) 
and  upon  his  ability  to  place  himself  in  religious  accord  with  the  biblical 
author,  with  express  recognition  diversitatis  styli  satis  multiplicis,  which  is 
to  be  derived  not  from  the  Holy  Spirit  immediate,  but  chiefly  a  suhjecto. 
Hence  also  a  special  hermeneutics,  particularly  for  the  different  authors 
of  the  N.  T.  The  end  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  glorifying  of 
God  by  the  edification  of  one's  self  and  others.  Historical,  grammatical 
and  analytical  study  leads  only  to  the  shell  ;  while  the  dogmatic,  the  poris- 
matic,  i.  e.  the  drawuig  of  inferences  for  doctrine,  reproof,  spiritual  training, 
and  comfort,  and  the  practical,  i.  e.  prayer  and  sighing,  lead  to  the  kernel. 
Rambach  forms  the  middle  term  between  the  proper  (Halle)  Pietists 
and  the  legitimate  heirs  of  the  scholastic  theology  ;  to  him  adhere  those  who 
attempt  to  reconcile  the  two  tendencies.     §  567. 

559.  And  yet  this  sect  has  done  biblical  science  essential 
service.  No  doubt  the  literalism  of  the  system  of  emphases 
demanded  an  unchangeable  text,  and  prevented  criticism,  and 
the  perfectly  justified  impatience  at  the  display  of  philological 
learning  in  the  pulpit,  at  the  petty  disputation  and  medley  of 
quotations,  led  to  the  opposite  extreme.  But  the  need  of  edi- 
fication, everywhere  present,  caused  them  and  others  to  see, 
little  by  little,  the  insignificance  of  purely  scholastic  dogmatiz- 
ing, and  thus  dulled  the  edge  of  controversy.  The  unessential, 
over  which,  for  the  most  part,  the  parties  and  churches  had 
been  contending  thus  far,  was  recognized  as  such,  and  a  basis 
found  for  peace.  Finally,  the  entering  into  the  mental  habit 
of  the  sacred  writers  recommended  by  this  school  also  aided 
the  still  very  defective  exegesis.  One  recognized  the  necessity 
of  distinguishing  the  peculiar  coloring  of  their  preaching,  and 
so  without  knowing  or  intending  it,  was  led  to  a  more  reason- 
able theory  of  inspiration. 

Of  Spener  explanations  of  some  epistles,  e.  g.,  Romans,  Galatians,  Ephe- 
sians,  Colossians,  1  John,  have  been  printed  separately  since  1097,  some  re- 
printed recently,  "  in  which,  beside  the  literal  meaning,  the  doctrines  and 
practical  lessons  to  be  derived  therefrom  are  set  forth."  P.  A.  Fischer, 
Spener  exegete,  Str.  1862. 

One  may  best  learn  the  peculiar  character  of  the  pietistic  exegesis  from 
the  lectures  of  Paul  Anton,  of  Halle  (f  1730),  printed  after  the  author's 
death,  on  the  Gospels,  Acts,  Romans,  and  Pastoral  Epistles,  1737  ff.,  23  vols. 
8°.  (J.  H.  Callenberg,  Vita  P.  Antonii,  1741.)  Less  spiritual,  and  hence 
petty  and  dull  in  his  dismemberments,  emphases,  types,  and  practical  ap- 
plications, J.  Lange,  Mosaisches,  biblisch-historisches,  davidisch-salomonisches, 
prophetisches,  evangelisches,apostolisches,apocali/ptisches  Licht  und  Recht,  Halle, 
1729  ff.,  7  vols.  fol.  There  are  also  lectures  by  J.  J.  Rambach  upon  several 
epistles,  published  after  his  death.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  at  Halle  (f  1738),  Hehr. 
Bihel  mit  Randhemerkungen,  also  separately,  Uberiores  annott.  in  hagiograpka, 
1720,  3  vols.  4°,  to  which  C   B.  Michaelis  and  Rambach  contributed. 

Similar  methods  were  followed  by  mystics  of  other  shades  :  (J.  H. 
Horch),  Mystiscke  und  profetische  Bihel  .  .  .  nehst  Erliarung  der  Sinnhilder 
und  Weissagungen,  Marb.  1712.  Cf.  J.  Schepp,  in  the  Bihl.  Hag.,  I.  357. 
The  Berleburg  Bible  (§  487)  purported  to  give  "  together  with  some  expla- 
nation of  the  literal  sense,  and  of  the  principal  types  and  prophecies  of 


680  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Christ  and  his  kingdom,  at  the  same  time  .  .  .  an  interpretation  which  re- 
veals the  inner  state  of  the  spiritual  life."  The  authors  (probably  several), 
unknown  and  not  altogether  in  accord,  combine  with  the  general  tendencies 
of  Pietism  theosophico-chiliastic  ideas,  and  take  issue  upon  occasion  with 
the  church  doctrines  ;  cf.  Weizsiicker,  in  Herzog's  Encijki.  Zinzendorf  and 
the  Herrnhuters  [Moravians]  accomplished  little  for  biblical  interpretation, 
even  in  their  own  sense  of  the  term,  because  with  them  the  formal  jninciple 
of  the  Protestant  theology  (the  authority  of  the  Scriptures)  was  forced  al- 
together into  the  background  by  the  one  -  sidedly  apprehended  material 
principle  (the  blood  of  Christ).  Mystical  expositions  of  the  Canticles  ap- 
peared in  great  numbers  about  the  middle  of  the  century,  mostly  by  anony- 
mous autliors,  therefore  not  by  theologians  of  the  schools. 

560.  The  rise  of  Pietism  and  its  reassertion  of  the  right  of 
the  people  to  the  Bible  was  at  first  opposed  by  orthodoxy  with 
all  the  scorn  of  outraged  privilege,  and  all  the  obstinacy  of  a 
conviction  which  owed  the  treasure  of  what  it  believed  it  knew 
and  knew  it  believed  not  to  isolated  endeavors  but  to  the 
united  and  consistently  applied  power  of  several  generations. 
But  since  the  discussion  related  rather  to  the  form  of  instruc- 
tion than  to  the  contents  of  the  faith,  the  controversy  neces- 
sarily brought  about  the  removal  of  the  differences,  and  the 
scholastic  learning  of  the  one  party  was  quite  susceptible  of 
being  reconciled  with  the  more  practical  bent  of  the  other. 
Spener's  school,  though  unwittingly,  prepared  the  way  for  the 
approximation  of  Liitheranism  and  Calvinism,  and  in  general 
threw  purely  theoretical  differences  into  the  background. 

Against  the  Pietists  wrote  V.  E.  Loscher,  at  Dresden  (f  1749),  Brevia- 
rium  theol.  exegeticce,  1719  (an  earlier  edition,  Rost.  1715,  he  disowned  ;  see 
Unsch.  Nachr.,  1715,  p.  545),  and  under  his  management  the  famous  journal 
Unschuldige  Nachrichten,  under  various  titles  (Altes  mid  Neues ;  Fortges. 
Sammlung  v.  Altem  und  Neuem  :  Fruhaufgelesene  Friichte)  1701-50  ;  Lbscher's 
Lehen,  by  Engelhardt,  Stuttg.'l856  ;  M.  Chladni  (Chladenius,  f  1725),  at 
Wittenberg,  Institt.  exegeticce,  1725  ;  J.  L.  Frbreisen,  at  Strassburg  (f  1761), 
Judicia  de  iis  qui  secido  prcesente  studio  exegetico  profuerunt  aut  nocuerunt, 
1754.  Of  more  genei'al  contents,  like  the  last,  are  also  the  "  Seuffzer  "  on 
the  exegetical  study  of  this  period,  in  the  above  mentioned  journal,  1702,  p. 
216. 

The  successors  of  the  older  Halle  Pietists  combined  with  the  hearty  piety 
of  their  predecessors  a  much  greater  learning.  They  preached  peace  (C.  B. 
Michaelis,  De  studio  partium  a  S.  S.  interpretatione  removendo,  1729),  and  in- 
clined more  either  to  historical  (Jena  :  J.  F.  Buddeus,  f  1729  ;  J.  G.  Walch, 
t  1775  ;  see  his  Leben,  1777)  or  to  philosophical  studies,  §570. — J.  L. 
Reckenberger,  at  Apolda,  Nexus  canonum  herm.  naturalis,  Vit.  1757  ;  C.  T. 
Seidel,  at  Helmstedt,  Amveisuug  zur  Erkldrung  der  h.  S.,  Halle,  1759.  But 
those  Pietists  who  went  on  in  the  beaten  track  of  contempt  of  the  world, 
one-sidedly  exaggerating  the  Halle  spirit,  soon  had  nothing  more  to  say  in 
science.  Many  good  orthodox  theologians  in  the  fii'st  half  of  the  eighteenth 
century  allowed  themselves  to  be  so  far  affected  by  the  new  spirit  as  to 
abandon  their  bitter  and  uncandid  polemic,  and  in  particular  to  give  to  their 
exegetical  works  a  character  favoring  facts  rather  than  opinions  (J.  Olea- 
rius,  at  Leipzig,  f  1713  ;  J.  H.  Mai,  at  Giessen,  f  1719  ;  S.  Deyling,  at 
Leipzig,  f  1755,  and  others,  the  rest  still  less  important).  Here  also  cf.  the 
general  works  on  the  History  of  Theology  cited  in  §§  554,  558. 


PIETISTS  — APOCALYPTIC  EXEGESIS.  681 

561.  Worthy  of  especial  mention  in  this  connection,  as  a 
peculiar  outgrowth  of  the  pietistic  tendency,  is  the  delight  in 
apocalyptic  exegesis.  Proceeding  essentially  from  the  hope  of 
a  millennial  kingdom  in  the  near  future,  which  was  naturally 
regarded  as  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  the  small  body  of  the 
elect  saints,  it  came  from  the  outset  into  conflict  with  strict 
Lutheranism,  wliich  had  declared  such  hopes  to  be  supersti- 
tion, and,  in  view  of  the  strong  approval  which  it  found  in  all 
German-speaking  countries  and  soon  also  outside,  may  have 
contributed  not  a  little  to  the  weakening  of  the  scholastic  the- 
ology and  its  influence.  It  delighted  in  strange  computations, 
and  built  castles  in  the  air  amid  the  confusion  and  wretched- 
ness of  matters  as  they  really  were.  The  Bible  and  human 
history  certainly  came  nearer  together  in  this  way,  but  un- 
fortunately it  was  only  in  the  fancies  of  a  dreamy  prophecy, 
which  led  the  way  to  the  New  Jerusalem  hard  by  the  insane 
asylum,  if  not  into  it. 

The  history  of  the  exposition  of  the  Apocalypse  is  given  most  fully  by 
Liicke,  in  his  Einleitung.  —  Tlie  orthodox  Protestant  exegesis  found  in  it  es- 
sentially an  anti-papal  section  of  Church  History,  and  so  interpreted  it  that 
the  millennial  kingdom  was  in  the  past.  In  the  eighteenth  century  this  sys- 
tem was  still  almost  universally  defended  by  the  Reformed,  Dutch,  Swiss, 
and  English  ;  among  the  last  it  prevails  even  to  the  present  day.  —  The 
more  famous  names  among  the  Lutherans  are  :  D.  Chytrseus,  1571  ;  G. 
Nigrinus,  1575  ;  M.  Hoe,  1G71;  C.  A.  Loseke,  1731.  Among  the  Reformed  : 
H.  BuUmger,  1557;  T.  Brightman,  1612  ;  J.  Napier,  1615  ;  J.  Le  Buy,  1651; 
J.  Marck,  1699  ;  C.  Vitringa,  1720  ;  Crinsoz,  1729,  etc. 

But  in  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  some  began  to  look  for 
the  millennial  kingdom  in  the  future,  and  in  the  imniediate,  definitely  calcu- 
lable future.  Apocalypsis  reserata,  Elbing,  1654  ;  C.  Heimiseh,  Oh  der  jungste 
Tag  1670  zu  erwarten,  Niirnb.  ;  his  Hauptschliissel,  etc.,  1698  ;  Van  Helmont, 
Seder  Olam,  1693  ;  the  great  Isaac  Newton  (in  the  English  Polyglot,  Pt. 
XIX.) ;  J.  W.  Petersen,  Die  Wahrheit  des  Rekhs  Christi,  1693  ;  J.  E.  Peter- 
sen, Anleitung  zum  Verstdndniss  der  Offenh.  Joh.,  1696  ;  their  Verkldrte  Of- 
fenb.  Joh.,  1706  ;  R.  Fleming,  Schllissel  zur  Offenh.  Joh.,  1701  ;  M.  Kro- 
mayer,  1708  ;  J.  C.  Seitz,  1721  ;  H.  Fitzner,  1735  ;  and  many  others. 

While  the  above-mentioned,  being  regarded  as  disreputable  fanatics,  could 
gain  little  countenance  for  their  view,  it  at  once  gained  the  ascendancy,  and, 
being  enthusiastically  accepted,  brought  the  Apocalypse  into  the  very  fore- 
ground of  biblical  study,  thi'ough  J.  A.  Bengel  (§  410),  prelate  at  Stuttgart 
(f  1752),  a  man  distinguished  equally  for  piety  and  learning  :  Erkldrte  Of- 
fenh. Joh.  Oder  vielmehr  Je.iu  Christi,  Stuttg.  1740,  and  freq.,  down  to  the 
present  time  ;  his  sixty  Erhauliche  Reden  tiher  die  Offenh.  Joh.,  1747,  and 
freq.,  which  also  contain  noteworthy  political  prophecies,  which  history 
seemed  more  than  once  on  tlie  point  of  justifying.  His  system  (Burk,  Lehen 
Bengels,  1831,  p.  263  ff.)  was  reproduced  in  mmiberless  writings,  modified, 
commented  upon,  versified,  and  has  its  believers  to  the  present  day  (§  584). 
His  best  known  followers  down  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution  were  :  .J.  G. 
Bbhmer,  J.  J.  Zehender,  S.  B.  Fehr,  Wille,  J.  H.  Tonnien,  J.  C.  Lucas,  W. 
B.  Christiani,  G.  F.  Chimonius,  C.  A.  Crusius,  C.  G.  Berger,  G.  F,  Fein,  M. 
F.  Roos,  C.  G.  Thube,  E.  Bengel  (son),  etc. 

That  with  Bengel  himself  this  tendency  (though  by  no  means  an  inciden- 


582  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

tal  matter)  did  not  disturb  the  sound  basis  of  his  exegesis  is  evident  from 
his  Gnomon  N.  T.  in  quo  ex  nat'wa  verborum  vl  simpUcltas  profundilas  concin- 
nitas  saluhritas  sensuum  ccelestium  indicatur,  Tiib.  1742,  and  fi-eq.,  2  vols.  4°. 
The  apologetico-hermeneutic  preface,  as  well  as  the  concise,  fruitful  execu- 
tion of  the  work,  retains  the  spirit  of  the  Halle  school  and  gives  it  a  more 
tasteful  dress. 

562.  Even  in  the  bosom  of  Catholicism  a  similar  struggle 
arose.  The  movement  which  started  with  the  Jansenists,  in 
opposition  to  the  spirit  of  the  Church,  which  was  languishing 
in  external,  formal  worship  and  work -righteousness,  found 
nourishment  and  support  in  the  Bible,  which  held  up  the  most 
faithful  mirror  to  their  quiet  self-examination.  Their  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  was  as  hearty  and  warm  as  that  of 
their  opponents  was  intellectual  and  cold.  Kindred  in  spirit 
to  the  German  Pietists,  they  shared  with  them  the  fate  of  be- 
ing attacked  by  a  school  proud  of  its  supremacy  and  knowl- 
edge, but  without  the  consolation  of  having  won,  at  the  cost 
of  their  undeserved  obloquy  and  persecution,  the  final  redemp- 
tion of  theology.  Yet  this  movement,  in  consequence  of  its 
Catholic  origin  and  monastic,  celibate  asceticism,  was  much 
more  closely  allied  than  the  pietistic  to  the  media3val  mysti- 
cism, and  led  to  errors  which  in  the  bosom  of  the  Protestant 
Church  could  not  so  easily  arise.  Moreover  they  maintained 
a  half-way  position  on  the  main  issue,  and  defended  what  they 
hazarded  and  won  not  so  much  with  clear  courage  of  conscience 
as  by  verbal  artifices  and  evasions  which  would  have  been 
more  worthy  of  their  opponents. 

But  a  very  nuich  greater  difference  between  the  two  schools  is  manifest 
in  the  way  in  which  their  spirit  expresses  itself  in  language.  The  French 
Jansenists  lived  and  wrote  in  the  golden  age  of  the  national  literature,  and 
were  some  of  them  among  the  classical  writers  of  their  fatherland  ;  the  Pie- 
tists, like  their  bitterest  opponents,  were  the  sons  of  the  period  of  the  Ger- 
man civil  war,  their  language  an  unwieldy  and  motley  mixture  of  rude 
German  and  scholastic  Latin,  with  which  was  soon  mingled  a  mass  of  for- 
eign idioms  also. 

For  the  literature  on  Jansenism  see  Winer,  Handb.,  3d  ed.,  I.  650  f.  Cf. 
§  488.  [H.  Reuchlin,  Geschichte  v.  Port  Royal,  der  Kampfdes  reform,  u.  des 
jesuitischen  Katholicismus  unter  Ludwig  XIII.  u.  XIV.,  1839-44,  2  vols.  ; 
Schill,  Die  Constitution  Unigenitm,  Freib.  1876  ;  Bouvier,  La  ve'rite  sur  les 
Arnaulds,  complete'e  avec  Vaide  de  lew  correspondance  inedite,  1877,  2  vols.  ; 
A.  Vandenpeereboom,  Cornelius  Jansenius,  septieme  e'veque  d'  Ypres,  sa  mart, 
son  testament,  ses  epitaphs,  Bruges,  1882  ;  Chas.  Beard,  Port  Royal,  Lond. 
1861  (the  best  English  history  of  the  Jansenist  controversy)]. 

Corn.  Jansen,  Bishop  of  Ypres  (f  1638),  dogmatic  writings  {Augustinus') 
and  posthumous  commentaries  on  the  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  the  books  of  Solo- 
mon, and  especially  the  Gospels  (Teti-ateuchus),  Louvain,  1639  ff.,  separately, 
and  f  req. 

The  use  of  Scripture  first  acquired  the  practical  and  ascetic  tendency 
which  resulted  from  the  master's  theological  views  among  the  French.  A. 
Godeau,  Bishop  of  Vence  (f  1672),  Paraphrases  des  c'pitres,  P.  1651,  6  vols.  ; 
Pasquier  Quesnel  (f  1719),  Le  N.  T.  avec  des  reflexions  morales  sur  chaque 


JANSENISTS  —  ARMINIANS.  583 

verset  pour  en  rendre  la  lecture  plus  utile  et  la  meditation  plus  aise'e,  P.  1687, 
and  freq.,  8  vols.,  German  by  J.  A.  Gramlich,  Frankf.  1718.  [E.  tr.,  The 
N.  T.,  with  moral  rejiections  upon  every  verse,  Lond.  1719-*25,  4  vols.  ;  an- 
other, of  a  part  of  the  work.  The  Four  Gospels,  with  a  commentary  and  reflec- 
tions, both  spiritual  and  moral ;  translated,  and  the  Popish  errors  expunged,  by 
a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  Bath,  1790,  2  vols.  ;  new  ed.,  revised 
by  H.  A.  Boardman,  N.  Y.  18G7,  2  vols.]  (fjjisch.  Nachr.,  1713,  p.  819  ; 
1715,  p.  254  If.)  Similarly,  the  whole  Bible,  by  Le  Maistre  de  Sacy,  Du 
Fosse',  Beaubrmi,  and  others,  P.  1672,  32  vols.,  and  fre^.  ;  A.  Arnauld 
(t  1694),  on  the  Acts. 

Far  beyond  the  limits  observed  by  the  above  went  the  restless  and  eccen- 
tric Quietist,  Job.  Maria  Bovieres  de  la  Mothe-Gnyon  (f  1717),  La  Ste. 
Bible  avec  des  explications  et  reflexions  qui  regardent  la  vie  inte'rieure,  Amst. 
1713,  20  vols. 

563.  Equally  removed  from  disputatious  dogmatism  and  self- 
satisfied  mysticism,  and  too  sober  for  either,  stood  the  Armin- 
ians.  Originally  bound  together  by  their  opposition  to  the 
too  great  severity  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  their  theology 
necessarily  assumed  from  the  outset  a  less  strict  character,  and 
their  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  so  far  as  the  party  inter- 
ests permitted  it,  maintained  a  more  independent  position  with 
respect  to  the  church  faith.  Perhaps,  indeed,  they  showed  too 
great  indifference  toward  the  proper  theological  contents  of 
the  Bible.  They  cultivated  with  especial  felicity  the  hitherto 
so  much  neglected  historical  element  in  interpretation.  Some 
of  them  also  brought  classically  trained  taste  to  the  work. 
But  suspected  as  they  were  by  all  their  opponents,  although 
these  were  so  at  variance  among  themselves,  their  example 
could  not  at  once  have  its  effect. 

They  were  honorable  enough  to  admit  that  no  special  enlightenment  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  bestowed  upon  them,  and  hence  that  none  was 
necessary;  and  they  failed,  for  this  very  reason,  to  see  a  great  many  things 
which  their  opponents  were  accustomed  to  discover.  As  theological  exe- 
getes  they  have  made  little  sensation.  Sim.  Episcopius,  at  Amsterdam 
(f  1613),  on  certain  dogmatically  important  passages  of  the  N.  T.,  0pp., 
1650-65,  2  vols.,  fol.  [Life  by  Ph.  Limborch,  in  Dutch,  afterward  translated 
into  Latin,  1701  ;  Calder,  Memoirs  of  Simon  Episcopius,  N.  Y.  1837]  ;  Ph.  v. 
Limborch,  Amsterdam  (f  1712),  on  the  Acts,  Romans,  and  Hebrews,  Rotterd. 
1711,  fol.  [A.  des  Armorie  van  der  Hoeven,  De  J.  Clerico  et  P.  a  Limborch^ 
Amst.  1845]  ;  C.  Hartsoeker,  on  the  Gospels,  Amst.  1688  if.,  separately. 

Rather  for  their  philological  and  historical  learning  and  application  of  it  : 
Hugo  Grotius  (De  Groot,  f  1645),  of  Delft,  jurist,  statesman,  and  theolo- 
gian, 0pp.  theoL,  Bas.  1732,  4  vols,  fol.,  containing  Annotationes  on  the  whole 
Bible,  with  copious  comparison  of  the  classics,  and  little  regard  for  the 
favorite  exegetical  ideas  of  the  time.  New  editions,  Ann.  in  V.  T.,  ed.  G.  J. 
L.  Vogel,  Halle,  1775,  3  vols.  4°;  A7m.  in  N.  T.,  ed.  C.  E.  a  Wiudheim, 
Erl.  1755,  2  vols.  4°;  together,  Grbn.  1834,  9  vols.  8°.  They  are  to  be  found 
also  in  the  Bibl.  illustr.  of  Calovius  (§  555),  mostly  hostile  to  them,  and  in 
the  Critici  sacri  (§  567).  Cf.  C.  Segaar,  Or.  d.  H.  Grotio  N.  T.  interprete, 
Traj.  1785  ;  Wachler's  Theol.  Nachr.,  1813,  p.  207;  Burigny,  Vie  de  Grotius, 
P.  1752,  2  vols.  ;  Diestel,  p.  430.  [Luden,  Hugo  Grotius  nach  s.  Schicksalen 
u.  Schriften  dargestellt,  B.  1806  ;  Butler,  Life  of  Hugo  Grotius,  L.  1826  ; 
Motley,  John  of  Barneveld,  N.  Y.  1874,  II.  ch.  xxu.] 


584  HISTOEY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

J.  Le  Clerc  (Clericus,  f  1736),  at  Amsterdam,  Latin  translation  and  para- 
phrase of  the  O.  T.,  with  philological  commentary  and  excursuses,  Amst. 
1693-1731  (also  Tiib.  1733  uncompleted),  5  vols.  fol.  Also  his  translation 
of  the  paraphrase  and  notes  of  H.  Hammond  on  the  N.  T.  (Loud.  1653,  and 
freq.)  from  the  English  into  Latin,  with  many  additions,  Amst.  1698,  fol., 
and  freq.,  De  optimo  genere  interpretum  S.  S.  (prefixed  to  Genesis).  Cf. 
Pfaff,  Vita  J.  Clerici  (in  the  Tiibingen  edition  of  the  Commentary).  Escher, 
in  the  Halle  Encijkl.,  I.  18. 

On  Wetstein's  Collectanea  from  the  classics  and  Rabbins  see  §  409  ;  De  in- 
terpretatio7ie  N.  T.,  in  Wetst.  libelli,  ed.  Semler,  p.  110  &.  ;  H.  G.  Glockner, 
Interpretandi  ratio  a  J.  J.  Wetstenio  adhibita  examinaia,  L.  1754. 

564.  All  these  parties  in  common,  even  the  last-mentioned 
not  excepted,  however  diverse  the  results  at  which  they  arrived, 
tacitly  recognized  the  faith  of  their  respective  churches  as  their 
guide  in  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures.  This  fact  may  be 
regarded  as  tlie  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  period  from  the 
close  of  the  Reformation  to  the  rise  of  the  critical  schools.  Not 
that  it  was  greatly  different  before  or  after ;  but  it  was  more 
clearly  recognized  and  more  honoiably  admitted  in  this  middle 
period.  There  was  no  room  for  an  opposite  procedure.  And 
when  philosophy,  by  the  mouth  of  her  most  gifted  exponent  in 
that  period,  and  his  followers,  demanded  for  herself  the  suprc^me 
voice  in  matters  of  interpretation,  such  a  demand  could  neitiier 
find  a  response  nor  leave  behind  a  school  in  the  science,  except 
as  the  latter  renounced  all  connection  with  the  Church,  and  after 
all  in  reality  but  changed  her  master. 

(B.  Spinoza)  Tractatus  theologico-politicus  continens  diss,  aliquot  quibus 
ostenditur  lihertatem  philosophandi  .  .  .  salva  pietate  et  reip.  pace  posse  concedi, 
etc.,  Hamb.  1670,  4°.  [E.  tr.  2d  ed..  Loud.  1868.]  A  definite  denial  of  the 
authority  of  theology  over  reason,  based  upon  the  view  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  nothing  but  simple  faith  in  God  and  obedience  to  Him,  and  that  conse- 
quently philosophy  needs  not  come  into  contact  witli  it  at  all.  Chs.  vii.,xiv., 
XV.  [H.  Ginsberg,  Leben  und  Charakterbild  Baruch  Spinoza's,  L.  1876  ; 
R.  Willis,  Benedict  de  Spinoza,  Lond.  1870  ;  F.  Pollock,  Spinoza,  his  Life  and 
Philosophy/,  Lond.  1880  ;  James  Martineau,  Spinoza,  Lond.  and  N.  Y.  1882, 
2d  ed.  1883.  Editions  of  Spinoza's  works  by  Paulas,  Jena,  1802-3,  Gfrdrer, 
Stuttg.  1830,  Bruder,  L.  1843-46,  and  by  J.  Vloten  and  J.  P.  N.  Land,  Hague 
1882  if.,  superseding  all  others.  Spinoza's  works  were  translated  into  Ger- 
man by  B.  Auerbach,  Stuttg.  1840,  5  vols.,  and  into  French  by  Saisset,  Par. 
1842,  'id  ed.  1861.] 

(L.  Meyer,  a  Dutch  physician)  Philotophia  Scripturce  interpres,  exercitatio 
paradoxa,  1666,  ed.  Semler,  1776  ;  cf.  Rosenmiiller,  Handb.,  IV.  54.  Here 
reason  does  not  appear  as  judge  of  a  book  with  which  it  has  nothing  to  do, 
but  is  commissioned  to  find  everywhere  in  the  Scriptures,  considered  as  the 
word  of  God,  truths  agreeable  to  itself. 

Cf.  L.  Wolzogen,  De  scripturarum  interprete  ad  exercitatorem  paradoxum, 
Utr.  16G8  ;  G.  B.  Bilfinger,  De  Spinosce  methodo  explicandi  S.  S.,  Jena, 
1739. 

565.  While  the  dogmatists  ^A'ere  thus  making  a  monopoly  of 
the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  rendering  the  occu- 
pation either  a  very  dangerous  or  a  very  mechanical  one,  there 


PHILOLOGICAL  AND  ARCH^OLOGICAL   STUDIES.        585 

was  also  a  considerable  number  of  learned  men  who,  from 
timidity  or  fancy,  amused  themselves  with  the  shell  of  this 
study,  and  either  did  not  care  to  seek  for  the  kernel,  or  were 
unable  to  find  it.  Some  of  them  devoted  themselves  with 
painstaking  industry  to  the  investigation  of  the  sacred  lan- 
gu;ig'es,  compared  the  classics  passage  by  passage,  studied  the 
Semitic  dialects,  examined  the  Oriental  versions,  and,  as  usual, 
thought  from  each  newly-discovered  or  more  thoroughly  inves- 
tigated source  to  solve  at  once  all  the  problems  of  the  science. 
Out  of  the  vast  masses  of  scattered  notes  grew  lexicons,  gram- 
mars, and  other  philological  helps,  and  although  they  did  not 
get  along  without  quarreling  even  in  this  field,  yet  there  was 
less  at  stake  than  in  the  theological  battles,  and  the  work 
could  be  carried  on  with  greater  calmness,  and  consequently 
with  greater  results. 

In  view  of  the  special  purpose  of  this  division  of  our  work  we  may  omit 
the  fuller  description  of  the  literature  in  this  and  the  following  section. 
Cf.  Gesenius,  Gesch.  der  kebr.  Sprache,  L.  1815  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  der  Schrifter- 
kldrung,  III.,  1  ff.,  IV.,  1  ff.  ;  Winer,  N.  T.  Grammar,  Introduction  ;  and 
above,  §  44  if. 

From  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  on  Hollanders,  Frenchmen,  and 
Englishmen  wrote  Observationes  of  a  purely  philological  nature  upon  isolated 
passages,  especially  of  the  N.  T.,  mostly  upon  the  basis  of  their  reading  in 
the  Greek  classics,  some  also  in  the  Oriental  languages  and  the  Rabbins. 
The  most  famous,  most  of  whose  works  are  printed  together  in  the  Critici 
sacri  (§  567),  are  :  J.  v.  d.  Driesche  (Drusuis,  f  1612),  at  Franeker  ;  L. 
de  Dieu  (f  1642),  at  Leyden  ;  J.  Cappelle  (f  1624),  at  Sedan  ;  L.  Cappelle, 
his  brother  (f  1658),  at  Saumur  (see  on  the  latter  M.  Nicolas  in  the  Strassb. 
Revue,  VIII.  257) ;  I.  Casaubon  (f  1614),  at  Geneva  and  London  ;  J.  Scaliger 
(f  1609),  at  Leyden  ;  D.  Heinsius  (f  1655),  at  Leyden  ;  E.  Leigh  and  J. 
Doughtey  (f  1671),  at  London  ;  L.  Bos  (1717),  at  Franeker  ;  much  later, 
J.  Eisner,  Reformed  preacher  at  Berlin  (f  1750)  ;  J.  Alberti  at  Leyden 
(f  1762)  ;  E.  Palairet  at  London  (f  1765),  and  many  others. 

In  the  hands  of  the  Lutherans  this  study  soon  became  petty  pedantry, 
attempts  being  made  to  explain  the  Greek  language  of  the  N.  T.  by  com- 
parison with  some  single  author  and  thus  set  aside  the  Hebraisms  so  odious 
to  orthodoxy  :  G.  Raphelius,  at  LUneburg,  1715  if.,  from  Hei'odotus,  Xeno- 
phon,  Polybius,  and  Arrian  ;  C.  H.  Lange,  1732,  from  Dionysius  Halicar- 
nassxis  and  Lucian  ;  C.  F.  Muntlie,  1755,  from  Diodorus  ;  J.  H.  v.  Seelen, 
1719  ff.,  from  Plutarch  and  Hesiod  ;  G.  W.  Kirchmaier,  1732,  from  Polybius  ; 
J.  C.  Messerschmid,  from  Cebes  (in  the  Bibl.  brem.,  IV.)  ;  T.  Eckhard,  1733, 
from  Aristophanes  ;  C.  Porschberger,  1744,  from  Theocritus  ;  G.  R.  Salchlin, 
1745,  from  Pindar  ;  D.  Peucer,  1752,  from  Callimachus  ;  C.  L.  Bauer,  1773, 
from  Thucydides  ;  C.  G.  Haymann,  1772,  fx-om  Apollodorus  ;  D.  C.  Grimm, 
1776,  from  Diodorus  ;  an  unknown  author  in  the  Bibl.  brem.  nov.,  V.,  from 
Artemidorus  ;  H.  Scboltz,  Johannea  ex  Theocrito,  1735,  etc. 

A  peculiar  school  was  founded  by  the  Orientalist  A.  Schultens  (f  1750), 
at  Leyden,  who  attempted  to  transform  the  whole  lexicon  and  exegesis  of  the 
O.  T.  with  the  aid  of  the  Arabic  (Job,  Proverbs,  etc.).  Cf.  J.  H.  Verschuir, 
De  interpr.  V.  T.  gramm.  hoc  seculo  ad  perfect,  educta,  Diss.,  p.  185  ;  Diestel, 
§  450  ;  F.  Miihlau,  in  the  Zeitschr.f.  luth.  Theol,  1870,  I. 

566.  Others  chose  for  the  subject  of  their  activity  the  sacred 


586  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

people  and  their  history.  Instead  of  religious  instruction,  they 
sought  in  the  Bible  hints  respecting  the  life  and  manners  of  the 
Hebrews.  Travelers  brought  them  trustworthy  information  of 
the  celebrated  land  and  its  character.  They  did  not  even  spare 
the  pains  to  search  the  otherwise  so  little  attractive  books 
of  the  Jews  for  reminiscences  of  the  conditions  of  the  ancient 
period.  The  religious  and  civil  order  was  restored  as  it  had 
been  established  by  Moses  and  administered  by  David;  animals 
and  plants  were  catalogued  and  determined;  their  dwellings, 
clothing,  and  food  were  described  to  the  smallest  detail,  and 
Israel's  whole  domestic  life,  more  complete,  orderly,  and  cleanly 
than  it  perhaps  ever  was  in  reality,  arose  like  a  ghost  called  up 
from  the  region  of  the  dead,  —  a  monument  of  astonishing, 
often  undigested,  learning,  but  a  still  unexhausted  mine  for  a 
generation  to  which  a  more  remunerative  task  has  fallen. 

The  following  may  serve  as  a  small  selection  of  the  moi-e  famous 
names  :  — 

For  Archaeology  as  a  whole  :  Ben.  Arias  Montanus  (de  la  Sierra,  f  1598) ; 
P.  Cunaeus,  at  Leydeu  (f  1G17)  ;  M.  Leydekker,  at  Utrecht  (f  1721);  A.G. 
Wiihuer,  at  Gottingeu  (f  17G2). 

For  Chronology  :  J.  Scaliger  ;  Denys  Petau,  a  Jesuit  at  Paris  (f  1652)  ; 
J.  Ussher  (Usserius,  f  1655),  Archbishop  of  Ai-magh  in  Ireland  ;  A.  des 
Vignoles,  at  Berlin  (f  1744). 

For  History  :  F.  Spanheim,  at  Leyden  (f  1701)  ;  J.  F.  Buddeus  (§  560)  ; 
H.  Prideaux,  at  Norwich  (f  1724). 

For  Geography  :  S.  Bochart,  at  Caen  (f  1667)  ;  H.  Reland,  at  Utrecht 
(t  1718)  ;  Vitringa  (§  557). 

For  Natural  History  :  Bochart  ;  J.  J.  Scheuchzer,  at  Ziirich  (f  1733)  ; 
O.  Celsius,  at  Upsala  (f  1756). 

For  Antiquities  proper  :  Th.  Goodwin,  at  Oxford  (f  1643) ;  J.  G.  Carpzov, 
at  Leipzig  (f  1767);  C.  Ikcn,  at  Bremen  (f  1753).  Religious  :  J.  Spencer, 
at  Cambridge  (f  1693)  ;  J.  Lund,  at  Tundern,  in  Schleswig  (f  1686)  ;  H, 
Reland,  Drusius,  Vitringa,  J.  Braun  (§  557);  H.  Witse,  at  Leyden  (f  1708); 
J.  Trigland,  at  Leyden  (f  1706)  ;  Th.  Dassov,  at  Wittenberg  and  Kiel 
(t  1721).  Political  and  civil  :  J.  Selden,  at  Loudon  (f  1654) ;  W.  Schickard, 
at  Tubingen  (f  1635),  etc. 

Such  materials  were  applied  directly  to  the  exegesis  of  the  N.  T.,  among 
others,  by  J.  Lightfoot,  at  Cambridge  (f  1675),  0pp.,  1686  fP.,  3  vols,  fol.; 
C.  Schottgen,  at  Dresden  (f  1751),  Horoe  hebr.  et  talm.,  1733  ;  J.  A.  Danz,  at 
Jena  (f  1727),  etc. 

The  often  disturbing  theological  presuppositions,  the  insufficient  observa- 
tion of  nature  at  that  time,  the  grotesque  trifling  of  many,  especially  those 
not  mentioned  here,  cannot  outweigh  the  considerable  and  hardly  won 
merits  of  the  rest.  Most  of  those  mentioned  are  Reformed,  scarcely  any 
Catholics. 

A  more  detailed  statement  of  titles  of  books  (which  may  be  found  in  the 
manuals  of  Hebrew  Archreology,  also  in  Diestel,  §  458  ff.),  and  a  continu- 
ation of  the  catalogue  for  the  later  period  of  the  biblical  literature  is  not  in 
place  here.  It  was  the  purpose  to  name  those  who  prepared  the  way  for 
giving  the  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures  a  new  direction,  not  historical  in- 
vestigators as  such.  Cf.  also  G.  F.  Gudius,  De  Jurisconsultorum  mentis  in 
S.  S.,  L.  1729  ;  J.  H.  a  Seelen,  De  medicorum  mentis  in  S.  S.  (Meditt.,  II., 
699). 


HISTORICAL  TENDENCY.  587 

567.  Perhaps,  -without  suspecting  it,  these  patient  hod-car- 
rievs  of  the  science  were  preparing  the  material  for  a  firmer 
building  than  that  which  the  scholasticism  of  the  seventeenth 
century  had  too  hastily  declared  complete.  True,  their  works 
have  many  of  them  been  forgotten,  but  their  more  useful  re- 
sults have  in  a  hundred  ways  become  the  common  property 
of  many.  While  dogmatic  interests  still  had  their  influence, 
and  through  the  pietistic  controversies  were  even  obtaining  a 
new  power,  the  jaassion  for  historical  collection,  coupled  with 
a  milder  judgment  of  those  of  different  views,  was  already 
beginning,  and  that  outside  of  Germany,  to  have  its  effect  in 
the  field  of  Scripture  interpretation.  There  came,  in  a  sphere 
by  no  means  narrow,  a  time  of  stagnation,  the  precursor  of  a 
greater  revolution,  and  those  who  were  least  touched  by  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  turned  their  attention  to  the  past. 

Such  collections  were  :  Critici  sacri  sive  clariss.  virorum  .  .  .  in  hiblia  annott. 
et  tractatus,  collected  by  J.  Pearson  and  others,  Lond.  1G60,  9  vols,  fol.,  as 
a  supplement  to  the  London  Polyglot  ;  contains  only  Reformed  and  Catholic 
expositors,  because  all  confessional  polemic,  without  which  the  Luthex"ans 
could  not  write  on  the  Bible  at  all,  was  designed  to  be  avoided  in  the  work. 
Reprinted  and  enlarged  at  (Amsterdam  and)  Frankfort,  1695,  9  vols,  fol., 
ed.  N.  Giirtler. 

Synopsis  critlcoruyn  aliorumque  S.S.  interpretum,  Lond.  16G9  and  freq.;  last 
at  Franlcf.  1712,  5  vols,  fol.,  by  Matth.  Poole  (Polus);  contains  the  former 
critics  and  numerous  others,  among  them  Lutherans,  no  longer  printed  com- 
plete and  consecutively,  but  worked  in  together  in  extract,  verse  by  verse, 
with  the  names  in  the  margin. 

The  so-called  English  Polyglot,  a  commentary  which  first  appeared  at  the 
Hague,  1742  ff.,  in  French  and  Dutch,  made  up  from  distinguished  English 
exegetes,  with  a  somewhat  more  decided  emphasis  on  the  dogmatic  element, 
though  not  on  the  confessional,  immediately  translated  into  German  by  R. 
Teller,  at  Leipzig,  J.  A.  Dietelmaii"  at  Altdorf,  and  J.  Brucker  at  Augsburg. 
L.  1749-70,  19  vols.  4°. 

C.  Starke's  Synopsis  hiUiothecce  exegeticce,  oder  kurzgefasster  Auszug,  etc., 
L.  1733  ft'.,  8  vols.  4°,  although  its  ultimate  design  is  to  pay  homage  to  the 
spirit  of  Pietism,  collects  industriously  and  without  polemic  a  great  number 
of  now  forgotten  interpreters  of  all  churches  and  scliools. 

Here  also  we  may  reckon  J.  C.  Wolf  at  Hamburg  (f  1739),  C^irce  philol. 
et  crit.  in  N.  T.,  Bas.  1741,  5  vols.  4°. 

568.  So  arose,  from  quiet  beginnings,  yet  amid  violent  but 
senseless  wrangling,  a  historical  tendency  in  the  study  of  the 
Bible,  which  from  decade  to  decade  bore  riper  fruit.  The 
results  in  knowledge  which  were  thereby  won  we  account  of 
less  value ;  we  rate  higher  the  coming  to  maturity  of  many 
fruitful  ideas,  and  the  dying  out  of  bygone  forms  of  the  science 
caused  thereby.  The  doctrine  of  the  supernatural  inspiration 
of  Scripture  underwent  a  modification  at  first  imperceptible, 
but  rich  in  results  for  hermeneutics.  The  incoming  of  anti- 
biblical  latitudinarianism  demanded  other  weapons  than  the 


588  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

battered  and  rusty  ones  from  tlie  armory  of  scholastic  ortho- 
doxy, and  the  clamor  of  the  stragglers  of  the  old  school  was 
lost  in  the  urgent  call  to  new  and  more  important  battles. 

The  new  historical  tendency,  still  outwardly  orthodox,  but  inwardly 
altogether  at  variance  with  the  ecclesiastical  system,  is  represented  in  its 
theory  by  J.  A.  Turretin  (at  Geneva,  f  1737),  De  S.  S.  inter pretanche  methodo, 
Utr.  1728,  printed  without  his  consent,  and  disowned  ;  (Restit.  et  auxit 
W.  A.  Teller,  177(3)  against  inner  illumination,  the  passion  for  emphases, 
and  the  analogy  of  the  faith,  and  besides  the  first  attempt  at  a  ISpecial 
Hermeneutics  (p.  371  :  Est  a7iimus  in  ea  quibus  scrihehant  tempora  et  loca 
transferendus  et  videndum  qucenam  in  eorum  qui  turn  vivebantanimo  oriri  potu- 
erint  idece.  .  .  .  Animus  vacuus  ad  Scr.  legendam  ajferendus,  instar  tabuke  rasce, 
etc.).  Also  posthumous  University  lectures  on  Romans  and  Thessalonians, 
1739  ff.  ;  Cogitationes  et  dissertationes,  Gen.  1737,  3  vols.  4°  ;  0pp.  theol., 
Leov.  1774,  3  vols.  4°.  F.  Schaller,  Essai  sur  Turr.,  Colm.  18G1  [H  de  Bude, 
Francois  et  J.  Alphonse  Turretini,  Laus.  1880,  2  vols.].  His  contemporary 
and  countryman,  S.  Werenfels,  at  Basle  (f  1740.  Ojjp.,  1782,  3  vols.),  was 
more  prudent  and  cautious  :  Lectiones  hermeneuticcej  De  scopo  inierpretis ; 
although  he  indulged  in  hearty  sarcasm  on  the  methods  of  the  dogmatists  : 
Epigr.  CO  :  Hie  liber  est  in  quo  sua  qucerit  dogmata  quisque,  invenit  et  pariter 
dogmata  quisque  sua. 

Here  are  to  be  classified,  above  all,  the  exegetical  writings  of  the 
archfeologists  named  in  §  566,  except  so  far  as  they  belong  to  the  Coeceians, 
and  their  sympathizers  among  the  Reformed  ;  e.  g.,  B.  Walaeus,  Ueber  die 
histor.  Biicher  des  N.  T.,  1652. 

I.  de  Beausobre  (§  487),  at  Berlin  (f  1738),  Remarques  hist.  crit.  et  phil. 
sur  le  N.  T.,  La  Haye,  1742  (also  containing  his  life)  ;  J.  L.  v.  Mosheim,  at 
Gottingen  (f  1755),  the  celebrated  church  historian  (see  LUcke,  Narratio  de 
J.  L.  Mosheim,  1837),  on  John,  Corinthians,  Pastoral  Epistles,  printed  mostly 
after  his  death  ;  C.  A.  Heumann,  at  Gottingen  (1765),  who  honorably  sac- 
rificed his  position  to  his  lapse  from  strict  Lutheranism,  but  would  only 
make  it  known  to  the  world  in  his  will  ;  Erkl.  des  N.  T.,  1750,  12  Pts.,  un- 
completed ;  De  exegesi  historica  (in  his  Nova  syll.,  I). 

J.  D.  Michaelis  (§  18),  who  did  not  succeed,  notwithstanding  his  best  ef- 
forts, in  remaining  orthodox,  because  his  learning  became  too  broad  and  he 
too  proud  of  it  ;  Deutsche  Uebers.  des  A.  T.  mit  Anmerkk.  fiir  Ungelehrte, 
1769  ff.,  13  vols.  4°  ;  N.  T.,  1790  ff.,  6  vols.  4°  ;  writings  on  Hebrew 
Antiquities  ;  paraphrases  and  commentaries  on  the  Epistles,  Ecclesiastes, 
Jeremiah,  etc.  ;  Orient,  u.  exeget.  Bibliothek,  1771-91,  33  vols.,  and  many 
smaller  writings,  mostly  on  biblical  subjects  ;  cf.  also  §  18.  Autobiography, 
with  notes  and  additions  by  Schulz,  Heyne,  and  Hassencamp,  1793  ;  cf. 
Eichhorn's  Bibl,  III.  827  ;  Ewald,  Jahrb.,  1848,  p.  26.  Against  Michaelis, 
from  the  one  side  (§  581),  J.  Tobler,  Anmerkk.  zur  Ehre  der  I'dbel,  1771  £f., 
8  vols.  ;  from  the  other  (§  575),  C.  F.  Bahrdt,  Kritiken  iiber  Michaelis  Bibel- 
ubers.,  1773.  —  In  the  spirit  of  Michaelis,  rather  indifl^erent  and  cautious  than 
orthodox,  many  others  treated  the  special  questions  in  the  literary  history  of 
the  Bible  (mostly  O.  T.). 

Contemporaneously  there  arose  also  the  still  very  immature  idea  of  a 
Biblical  Theology  :  A.  F.  Biisching  (the  Polyhistor  at  St.  Petersburg  and 
Berlin  (f  1793),  see  his  Autobiography,  1789),  Epitome  theol.  chr.  e  soils  ss. 
II.  concimiatce  et  ab  omnibus  rebus  et  verbis  scholasticis  purgata,  1756  ;  C.  A. 
Dijderlein,  Von  den  hohen  Vorziigen  der  bibl.  Theol.  vor  d.  scholastischen,  1758. 

Equally  noteworthy  is  the  gi"owing  silence  of  polemic,  even  against  the 
Catholic  Church,  especially  in  relation  to  all  matters  closely  connected  with 
the  theology  of  the  Scriptures.      Cf .  §  595.     How  among  the  Protestants 


WOLFIAN  PHILOSOPHY.  589 

themselves  Orthodoxy  was  forced  into  a  purely  defensive  position,  see  §  581 
f.  —  During  the  middle  third  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  number  of  able 
and  intelUgent  theologians  at  the  German  Universities  was  extraordinarily 
small,  and  the  more  distmguished  (perhaps  Baumgarten  and  Pfaff  excepted) 
shone  only  as  historians.  An  important  sign  of  the  revolution  of  the  theo- 
logical spirit  of  the  age,  the  new  University  of  Gottingen,  which  soon  be- 
came prominent,  gave  the  key-note  for  the  primacy  of  historical  learning  in 
theology  also. 

569.  Hand  in  band  with  the  gradual  wearing  away  of  dog- 
matic rigor  in  exegesis  went  a  similar  change  in  method.  The 
practical  design  of  exposition,  combined  with  the  empty  ver- 
bosity of  the  current  style  of  writing,  brought  into  existence 
a  flood  of  paraphrases,  in  which  scientific  precision  and  the 
energy  of  the  biblical  speech  were  both  alike  wanting.  Their 
great  number  was  not  an  accidental  phenomenon.  It  showed 
that  the  time  of  purely  polemic  treatment  of  the  Scriptures 
was  past,  and  that  men  desired  to  let  the  Apostles  speak  for 
themselves.  Moreover  they  were  altogether  sincere  in  tliis 
desire,  and  did  not  take  note  that  in  this  paraphrastic  form 
the  Apostles  in  reality  often  spoke  but  very  little. 

Paraphrasing,  which  had  already  been  in  favor  earlier,  a  reaction  against 
formal  learning  and  philological  word-sifting,  came  into  vogue  first  in  Eng- 
land, after  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  :  S.  Clarke,  Gospels, 
1701  ;  J.  Locke,  several  Pauline  Epistles,  1709  ;  J.  Peirce,  the  same,  1733  ; 
G.  Benson,  all  the  Epistles,  1734  ;  Th.  Pyle,  Epistles  and  Acts,  1725  ;  Ph. 
Doddridge,  The  Family  Expositor,  on  the  whole  N.  T.,  etc.  Most  of  these 
were  frequently  reprinted  and  transplanted  to  German  soil,  where  at  that 
time  the  English  literature  was  attentively  followed  and  imitated.  The 
spirit  and  contents  of  these  works  and  those  like  them  was  very  various, 
sometimes  analytic  of  the  thouglit,  sometimes  rather  edificatory  and  diffuse, 
sometimes  even  abusing  the  form  to  the  introduction  of  peculiar  views.  For 
the  last  cf .  among  others  the  N.  T.  translated  "  according  to  the  sense  "  of 
the  original,  by  Tim.  Pliiladelphus  (Kayser),  1733,  4  vols. 

570.  The  Wolfian  philosophy,  which  many  had  embraced  in 
the  want  of  a  better  substitute  for  the  former  scholasticism,  had 
accustomed  theologians,  before  they  suspected  in  it  any  danger 
to  orthodoxy,  to  consider  religious  matters  from  the  point  of 
view  of  their  reasonableness,  and  invited  to  their  mathematical 
demonstration.  Thus  there  came  into  exegesis  a  fashion  of 
hairsplitting  analysis  and  dreary  tabulation  which  repelled 
the  spirit  without  helping  the  intellect.  But  this  dialectic 
tendency  did  not  strike  root,  any  more  thnn  the  opposite, 
which  blended  philosophy  and  mysticism.  Grammar  and  ar- 
cha3ology  weie  already  more  important  elements  in  exegetical 
activity  than  dogmatics.  For  typology  the  age  was  altogether 
too  sober  and  poor  in  imagination,  and  what  was  taught  theo- 
retically concerning  it  resembles  an  unwilling  retreat,  and  soon 
ended  in  its  lying  down  to  die. 

Upon  Wolfian  methods  proceeded  (beside  many  dogmatic  theologians,  see 


590  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Sclirockh,  N.  Kirchengesch.,  VIII.  26)  C.  WoUe,  at  Leipzig  (f  17G1),  Her- 
meneutlca  N.  T.  certisKimis  defcecatce  philosophke  principus  corrohorata,  1736 
(for  the  first  time  the  N.  T.  specially)  ;  combining  this  method  with  a 
liking  for  historical  research  and  pietistic  reminiscences,  S.  J.  Baumgarten, 
at  Halle  (f  1757),  Unterricht  von  Auslegung  der  h.  S.,  1742  and  freq.  ;  Aus- 
fuhrlicher  Vortrag  der  Hermeneuiik,  1769  ;  Auslegung  der  evang.  u.  epist.  Pe- 
rikopen  des  Joh.,  Paulus,  Jac,  separately,  1750  ft'.,  the  exegesis  analyzed  and 
figured  out  to  insipidity.  J.  H.  Benner,  at  Giessen,  Sylloge  thesium  herm., 
1753.  —  H.  van  Alphen,  at  Utrecht,  Specimma  analytica  in  epp.  Pauli,  Traj. 
1742,  is  perfectly  empty,  petty  analysis.  —  The  decided  Wolfians  busied 
themselves  only  with  dogmatics,  not  with  exegesis  (a  fact  to  be  kept  in  mind). 
Cf.  Tholuck,  Gesch.  des  Rationalismus,  §  119  ft. 

C.  A.  Crusius,  at  Leipzig  (f  1775),  Hypomnemata  ad  theol.  propheticam, 
1764  ft.,  3  vols.  ;  a  Messianic  exposition  of  the  O.  T.  based  upon  philosoph- 
ical views,  but  presenting  only  ode  side  of  his  system,  which  was  designed  to 
commend  the  orthodox  faith  to  the  reason  without  estranging  it  from  the 
spiritual  nature.  Cf.  F.  Delitzsch,  Crusius  als  Schriftausleger,  in  lUgen's 
Zeitschr.,  1844,  IV.,  and  Gesch.  der  prophet.  Theol.,  p.  1  ft. 

J.  G.  Tollner,  at  Frankfoi't  a.  d.  O.  (f  1774),  Grundriss  einer  erwiesenen 
Hermeneutik  der  h.  S.,  1765  ;  Gottl.  Eingebung  der  h.  S.,  1771,  attempted,  both 
in  the  writings  mentioned  and  in  his  dogmatic  works,  to  set  forth  at  the  out- 
set, by  the  aid  of  reason,  certain  formulas  respecting  the  orthodox  faith,  so 
that  Orthodoxy  should  find  in  reason  its  justification.  Cf.  Ernesti,  Bibl.,  XII. 
31  ;  Stiiudlin,  Gesch.  der  Moral,  p.  763. 

C.  G.  Hofmann,  at  Wittenberg  (f  1774),  Institt.  theol.  exegeticce,  1754. 
Equally  averse  from  dialectics  and  from  typomania,  he  in  theory  limited 
the  use  of  reason,  and  in  effect  looked  for  salvation  from  linguistic  knowl- 
ledge,  jjsychology,  and  method.  He  had  made  his  first  appearance  as  an 
opponent  of  the  Pietists  and  Herrnhuters  [Moravians]. 

The  first  to  return  again  to  typological  matters  was  C.  M.  Pfaff,  at 
Ttibingen  (f  1760),  a  herald  of  peace  in  the  Protestant  Church,  De  theologies 
typicce  recta  conformatione,  1723  ;  J.  A.  Cramer,  at  Kiel  (f  1788),  denied  it 
dogmatic  importance,  and  made  it  subservient  to  simple  edification  (Psalmen, 
IV.  129  ft.)  ;  J.  D.  Michaelis  (§  568),  Entwurf  der  typischen  Gottesgelahrtheit, 
1753,  haggled  over  the  material  and  aim  of  the  science,  and,  himself  thor- 
oughly devoid  of  taste,  feared  to  offend  against  taste  by  Cocceian  excess. 
J.  W.  Ran,  at  Erlangen  (f  1807),  Freimuthige  Unterss.  uber  die  Typologie, 
1784,  attempted  to  show  its  baselessness.  In  general,  however,  the  ideas 
respecting  the  so-called  deeper  sense  of  Scripture  were  obscure,  and  the 
principles  contradictory  in  statement,  even  on  the  orthodox  side.  Cf.  also 
Benson,  Paraphr.,  I.  1  ;  C.  E.  Weismann,  Pro  sensu  spirituali  V.  T.,  Tiib. 
1735  ;  G.  L.  Oeder,  Conject.,  p.  511  ff. 

671.  After  the  theological  principles  of  former  times  had 
thus  lost  their  energy,  and  simultaneously  a  manifold  intel- 
lectual life,  independent  of  religious  ideas,  in  part,  indeed, 
opposed  to  them,  had  sprung  up  among  the  German  people, 
the  time  necessarily  came  at  last  when  the  new  should  try  its 
young  strength  in  creation  and  transformation  in  this  particu- 
lar field  also.  True,  no  authority  was  longer  recognized  save 
that  of  the  mind,  but  custom,  and,  yet  moi'e,  the  German  genius 
itself,  maintained  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  notwithstanding 
the  attacks  of  an  extreme  but  wholly  impotent  party.  Exe- 
gesis continued  to  be  a  science  of  the  new  period,  but  went 


ERNESTI.  591 

over,  simply  changing  her  mistress,  from  the  service  of  the 
Church  to  that  of  the  school,  and  became,  witliout  will  of 
her  own,  an  accessory  in  the  most  opposite  endeavors.  But 
the  fact  that  the  Church  no  longer  had  the  power  to  expel 
formally  elements  which  were  alien  and  dangerous  to  her  was 
at  once  a  sign  of  the  revolution  which  had  taken  place,  and  a 
pledge  of  her  universal  destiny. 

The  revolution  concerned  chiefly  the  distinction  between  revelation  and 
the  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  Old  and  New  Testament,  religion  and  theology. 

J.  O.  Thiess,  Elnl.  in  die  neuere  Geschichte  der  Religion,  Kirche,  u.  the.ol. 
Wissenschaft,  Sclilesw.  1797  ;  J.  A.  H.  Tittmann,  Pragmat.  Gesch.  der  Theol. 
u.  Religion  in  d.  prot.  Kirche  in  d.  zweiten  Halfte  des  achtzehnten  Jalirh.,  B. 
1805  ;  C.  W.  Flugge,  Hist.  krit.  Darstellung  des  bisherigen  Einjiasses  der  Icant- 
ischen  Philosophie  auf  die  ivissenschaftliche  u.  praktische  Theol. ,  Hann.  1796  f., 
2  Pts.  ;  A.  Tholuck,  Abriss  einer  Gesch.  der  Umwiilzung  welche  seit  1750  auf 
dem  Gebiete  der  Theol.  in  Deutschland  stattgefunden  (^Verm.  Schriften, II.  1  ff.)  ; 
C.  F.  A.  Kahnis,  Der  innere  Gang  des  deutschen  Proteslantismus  seit  der  Mitte 
des  vorigen  Jahrh.,  L.  1854:  ;  A.  Saintes,  Hist,  critique  du  rationallsme,  P. 
1843. 

J.  C.  L.  Gieseler,  R'dckblick  auf  die  theol.  u.  kirchl.  Richtungen  u.  Entwick- 
lungen  der  letzten  fUnfzig  Jahre,  Gott.  1837  ;  A.  Neander,  Das  verfiossene 
halbe  Jahrh.,  etc.,  in  the  Berl.  Zeitschr.,  1850,  I.  ff.  ;  F.  C.  Baur,  Kirchen- 
gesch,  des  lOten  Jahrh.,  Tiib.  1862,  p.  99  ff. 

H.  J.  Rose,  The  State  of  Protestantism  in  Germany,  2d  ed.  1829,  which  also 
contains  a  series  of  essays  of  similar  contents  by  P.  A.  Stapfer,  from  the 
Archives  du  Christianisme,  1824  ff.  ;  O.  T.  Dobbin,  German  Rationalism  in  its 
Early  Indications,  in  Kitto's  Journal  of  Sacr.  Lit.,  I.  ;  his  Influence  of  Modern 
Philosophy  on  Christianity,  ibidem,  II.  ;  E.  Dewar,  German  Protestantism, 
Oxf.  1844. 

572.  But  this  revolution  did  not  come  about,  like  so  many 
others,  through  the  sudden  and  overwhelming  victory  of  a 
principle  sharply  opposed  to  that  hitherto  in  force.  Revolu- 
tions in  the  realm  of  mind  do  not  so  take  place.  The  change 
goes  forward  gradually,  and  is  all  the  more  lasting  for  that 
reason.  Thus  we  find  on  the  threshold  of  this  period  a  school 
of  men  who  were  accessible  to  the  new  ideas,  without  allowing 
themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  them.  At  their  head  stood 
Johann  August  Ernesti,  and  their  activity  began  at  Leipzig. 
Rather  philologists  than  theologians,  and  the  former  under- 
stood in  the  sense  of  classical  culture  and  purity,  they  brought 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  rather  taste  and  con- 
scientiousness than  spiritual  depth  and  philosopliical  views. 
Much  admired  in  their  time  as  the  antipodes  of  the  artificial 
style  that  was  departing,  they  have  long  since  ceased  to  satisfy 
our  age  with  their  rhetorical  superficiality.  Fresh  and  bold  in 
the  beginning  of  their  glory,  and  falling  in  with  tlie  opinions 
in  vogue,  having  no  theological  formula  on  their  standard, 
they  were  soon  outstripped,  and,  almost  more  neutral  than 
conservative,  not  only  had  no  claim  to  enduring  influence,  but 


592  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

were  obliged  to  look  on  wliile  their  weapons,  according  to  the 
usual  course  of  things,  were  made  use  of  by  a  more  violent 
party. 

J.  A.  Ernesti,  at  Leipzig  (f  1781),  Insdtutio  interpretis  N.  T.,  L.  17G1,  5th 
ed.  1809  [E.  tr.  by  Terrot,  in  the  Biblical  Cabinet,  Edinb.  1834]  ;  Neue 
theol.  Bibliotliek,  1760-1779  ;  Diss,  pro  grammatica  interpr.  II.  ss.,  1749  ;  De 
vanitate  philosophantium  in  interpr.  II.  ss.,  1750  ;  De  difficultate  interpr.  gramm., 
1755  ;  other  works  in  his  0pp.  pJiil.  et  theol.  His  Anmerkk.  zum  N.  T.,  1786, 
and  Lectiones  in  Ep.  ad  Hebr.,  1795,  are  University  lectures  printed  fi-om 
notes  after  his  death.  (Cf.  W.  A.  Teller,  Ernesti's  Verdienste  um  Theologie  u. 
Religion,  L.  1783  ;  Semler,  Zusdtze  zu  Teller,  Halle,  1783  ;  B.  F.  Schmieder, 
Ernestiana,  1782  ;  J.  v.  Voorst,  De  Ernest io  optimo  post  Grotium  duce  interpr. 
N.  T.,  Leyd.  1804  ;  Eckstein,  in  the  Halle  Enajkl,  I.  37.)  —  For  his  vague 
and  imperfect  views  on  inspiration,  see  the  Bibl.,  III.  469.  It  is  character- 
istic of  liini  that  he  throughout  regards  hernieneutics  as  the  highest  depart- 
ment of  theology,  and  makes  the  philological  element  in  it  more  prominent 
than  all  others. 

S.  F.  N.  Morns,  at  Leipzig  (f  1792),  Super  Henneneutica  N.  T,  acroases 
acad.,  L.  1797  f.,  2  vols.  ;  Dissert,  theol.,  1798,  2  vols.  University  lectures 
on  Luke,  John,  the  Acts,  and  most  of  the  Ejjistles,  edited  after  his  death 
by  different  persons,  and  of  varying  value,  according  to  the  source.  J.  G. 
C.  Hopfner,  Leben  und  Verdienste  S.  F.  N.  Mori,  1793. 

J.  A.  Dathe,  at  Leipzig  (f  1791),  a  Latin  version  of  the  O.  T.,  1773  ff.  and 
freq.,  6  vols,  witli  notes  ;  Opuscula,  1796.  Elogium  Dathii,  L.  1791.  J.  F. 
Fischer,  at  Leipzig  (f  1799),  tlie  grammarian  and  lexicographer  of  the 
school.  J.  C.  Doderlein,  at  Jena  (f  1792),  its  systematic  theologian,  exe- 
getical  treatment  of  Isaiah  and  the  poetical  books  of  the  O.  T.  ;  Theol.  Bibl., 
1780-91  ;   Theol.  Journal,  1792.     See  Amnion,  in  Hiinlein's  Journal,  I.  1. 

J.  G.  Rosenmiiller,  at  Erlangen  and  Leipzig  (f  1815),  Scholia  in  N.  T., 
Nurnb.  1777,  6th  ed.  1831.  See  J.  C.  Dolz,  Leben  J.  G.  Rosenmilller's, 
1816.  E.  F.  C.  Rosenmtiller  (son  of  the  former,  f  1835),  at  Leipzig,  Scholia 
in  V.  T.,  1788-1835,  24  vols.,  3d  ed.  partially  completed,  to  Samuel-Esther. 
Extract  from  it  (vols.  I.-XVIL),  6  vols.  1828  IE.  ;  archjeological  writings  ; 
Exeget.  Handb.  far  die  bibl.  Beioeisstellen,  1795,  uncompleted. 

Springing  from  the  Ernestian  school,  but  going  beyond  them  in  dogmatic 
liberalism :  J.  A.  Nosselt,  at  Halle  (f  1807),  Anweisung  zur  Bildung  ange- 
hender  Theologen  ;  Pt.  II.  :  Von  der  exeget.  Theologie,  1786,  and  freq.  ;  Opus- 
cula ad  interpr.  S.  S.,  1785  f.,  2  vols.  ;  Exercitt.  ad  S.  S.  interpr.,  1803  (cf. 
Niemeyer,  Leben  NiisseWs,  1809  ;  Gabler,  Journal  fur  auserlesene  Lit.,  V. 
70);  and  C.  G.  Kiilmol,  at  Leipzig  and  Giessen  (f  1841),  De  subtilitate  in- 
terpretationem  gramm.  commendante,  1788  ;  Einiges  iiber  Stiicke  des  A.  T. 
(Hosea,  Psalms,  Messianic  prophecies,  1792-99),  but  especially  Comm.  in  II. 
N.  T.  historicos,  1807  ff.,  4  vols.,  4th  ed.  1843,  and  Ep.  ad  Hebr.,  1831.  The 
former  is  philologically  untrustworthy  and  theologically  unsteady,  the  latter 
certainly  more  thorough  but  already  behind  the  times. 

Strongly  of  the  opposite  tendency,  C.  C.  Tittmann  (f  1820),  at  Witten- 
berg and  Dresden,  Opuscula,  1803  ;  Comm.  on  John,  1810  (at  first  separate 
programmes,  1786  ff.).  The  preface  is  a  hermeneutical  confession  of  faith, 
not  without  polemic.  —  F.  S.  Winterberg,  De  interpr.  unica,  etc.,  in  Velthu- 
sen's  Sylloge,  IV. 

573.  The  magical  word  which,  however  gradually  and  hesi- 
tatingly, was  to  bring  about  the  final  emancipation  of  the 
theology  of  the  Scriptures  from  the  yoke  of  tradition,  was 
spoken  by  a  man  whom  nature  had  made  neither  for  a  party 


SEMLER.  593 

leader  nor  for  a  prophet.  This  man  was  Joliann  Salomo  Sem- 
ler,  A  thorough  Pietist,  a  man  of  books  from  the  school  up, 
he  was  drawn  rather  by  the  current  of  the  time  than  by  the 
power  of  genius,  rather  by  instinct  than  consciously,  to  the 
head  of  a  nioveuient  which  he  was  too  weak  to  lead,  and  whose 
future  course  he  had  not  the  ability  to  foresee.  At  heart  in- 
clined reverently  to  preserve  that  which  was  venerable,  he  led 
the  most  deadly  attack  against  all  tradition.  Absorbed  in  tbe 
endless  contention  of  the  moment,  he  ai'rived  at  no  definite 
position  for  the  future.  His  tireless  and  unsystematic  learn- 
ing gave  him  no  leisure,  as  his  unwieldy  knowledge  gave  him 
no  means,  of  causing  a  new  structure  to  rise  from  the  ruins  of 
the  old.  If  his  thoughts  have  descended  to  his  posterity  as 
principles,  it  is  due  not  to  his  intellect  but  to  their  intrinsic 
truth,  and  it  is  only  because  the  later  generation  did  not  mis- 
understand them,  as  he  did,  that  it  remembered  his  name. 

On  Seinler  see  §§  18,  342, 411.  Autobiography,  H.  1781  f.,  2  vols.  Eich- 
horn,  Lehen  Semler's,  in  his  Bibl,  Pt.  V.  ;  Nosselt,  Narratio  de  S.  ejusque 
meritis  in  interpr.  S.  S.,  in  his  paraphrase  of  the  First  I^pistle  of  John  ;  cf. 
Nienieyer's  Leben  Nosselt's,  II.  194  if.  ;  Thohick,  Vermischte  Schriften,  II. 
39  ff.  ;  H.  Schmid,  Theologie  Semler's,  Nordl.  1858. 

Individuals  are  never  creators,  but  only  symptoms  of  revolutions.  With- 
out desiring  to  depreciate  the  uuportaiice  of  Semler,  it  should  not  be  forgot- 
ten that  he  did  not  open  a  new  path  for  his  age,  but  simply  attempted  to 
formulate  the  critical  ideas  which  were  everywhere  coming  into  view,  and  to 
create  for  them  a  more  solid  basis.  Turretin  had  said  more  than  he  began 
with  a  generation  before  him  (§568);  the  apparently  growing  uncertainty 
of  the  text  (§  407  ff.)  had  given  the  death-blow  to  the  belief  in  verbal  in- 
spiration, and  to  the  method  of  emphases,  at  a  time  when  both  were  still  in 
their  glory;  more  gifted  minds,  such  as  Lessing  (§  341),  had  uttered  as  a 
revelation  what  Semler  only  arrived  at  by  laborious  investigation  and  clumsy 
demonstration  ;  and  the  latter  became  the  famous  man  that  he  was  chieily 
because  the  theologians  everywhere  else,  and  particularly  in  his  own  neigh- 
borhood, had  failed  to  keep  up  with  the  intellectual  development  of  the 
nation.  For  his  own  opinion  of  his  relation  to  his  predecessors  and  contem- 
poraries with  respect  to  Biblical  Theology  see  his  Life,  II.  121. 

His  writings  belonging  under  this  head  :  Vorbereitung  zur  theol.  Hermeneu- 
tik,  1760  ff.,  4  vols.  ;  De  mi/sticarum  interpr.  studio  hodie  parum  utili,  1760  ; 
Apparatus  ad  liberalem  N.  T.  interpretationem,  1767;  .  .  .  V.  T.,  1773  ;  Neuer 
Versuch  die  Auslegung  und  Anwendung  des  N.  T.  zu  befordern,  1786  ;  para- 
phrases and  notes  on  John,  Romans,  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Catholic  Epis- 
tles, 1769  fE.,  sejjarately.  Dogmatic,  historical,  and  apologetic  writings. 
Editions  of  earlier  works  of  kindred  character,  with  prefaces,  notes,  addi- 
tions (R.  Simon,  Wetstein,  etc.). 

Startled  by  the  vagaries  of  younger  contemporaries  (§  575)  he  shrank 
back  at  last  from  his  work,  and  almost  came  to  doubt  his  science  altogether. 
See  Semler's  letzte  Aeusserungen  fiber  religiose  Gegenstande,  etc.,  1791,  in  three 
different  editions  simultaneously  by  A.  H.  Niemeyer,  F.  A.  Wolf,  and  J.  O. 
Thiess.     Semler's  letztes  Glaubensbekenntniss,  ed.  C.  G.  Schiitz,  Kon.  1792. 

574.  This  truth,  which  was  by  no  means  so  clearly  nnd  con- 
sciously expressed  by  Semler  as  we  are  accustomed  to  express 

33 


594  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

it  to-day,  was  based  upon  the  historical  point  of  view  from 
which  lie  considered  the  Sci'iptures,  as  something  which  had 
come  into  existence  in  time,  and  which  was  not  to  be  compre- 
hended from  the  stand-point  of  our  own  times  and  wa3'S  of 
thinking.  But  his  perception  of  this  was  only  partial.  He 
heralded  the  discovery  that  the  Church  doctrine  had  been  de- 
veloped from  the  apostolic  teaching  gradually  and  not  without 
admixture  of  foreign  elements ;  but  his  unphilosophical  judg- 
ment Avas  as  unable  to  comprehend  the  spirit  of  this  develop- 
ment as  was  his  rule  of  the  sound  human  reason  to  understand 
the  original  gospel  of  Christ.  Amid  the  multitude  and  dust 
of  his  books  his  heart  failed  to  find  expression  ;  the  moral  ele- 
ment of  faith  began  to  be  separated  from  the  religious  and 
spiritual  under  pretext  of  pui'ifying  the  latter ;  everything 
going  beyond  this  was  regarded  as  conscious  or  unconscious 
accommodation  to  Jewish  ideas.  It  was  to  be  the  task  of  the 
historical  exegesis  to  prove  this,  but  the  rule  which  was  to 
guide  the  expositor,  in  the  place  of  the  ecclesiastical  analogy 
of  the  faith,  he  could  naturally  find  only  in  himself. 

With  this  view  of  the  church  doctrine,  not  so  much  theoretically  as  actu- 
ally, the  departure  from  the  dogmatics  of  the  Reformers  was  completed. 
The  history  of  doctrines,  an  almost  new  science,  became  the  centre  of 
theological  investigations,  but  its  own  sight  was  perverted  because  of  its 
starting-point.  Semler  recognized,  indeed,  the  different  tendencies  in  the 
apostolic  age  and  church,  but  he  estimated  them  very  superficially,  and  not- 
withstanding his  own  varied  inner  experiences  could  not  transport  himself 
into  the  realm  of  thought  of  the  primitive  period.  See  his  Lehen,  by  Eich- 
horn,  p.  59  ff. 

The  thought  which  unites  the  theology  of  Semler  with  that  of  his  like- 
minded  contemporaries,  pupils,  and  followers  exhausts  itself  in  the  reduc- 
tion of  Christianity  to  a  new  doctrine,  whose  aim  is  the  hapi^iness  of  man- 
kind through  virtue.  The  distinction,  beyond  this,  consists  in  the  subjective 
religious  and  moral  constitution  of  the  individual  theologians  or  philosophers. 
Moreover  Christ  4\a\ei  cvtoIs  rhv  K6-yov  KaOws  ijdvi'avTO  a/coueir,  Mk.  iv.  33. 
Itaque  satis  patet  Uhrorum  N.  T.  interpretationeni  esse  prcecipue  historicam  atque 
descrihere  illius  temporis  res  gestas,  studia,  instituta  Christianis  eo  tempore  col- 
Ugendis  et  conjirmandis  aptissima  quce  non  omnino  ad  nos  traduci  cuncta  pos- 
sunt,  etc.     Instit.  brevior.  ad  liberal,  erud.  tkeoL,  1765,  p.  52  f. 

Semler  left  behind  him  no  peculiar  school,  but  those  to  be  mentioned  in 
the  next  following  sections,  all,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  learned  from  him, 
made  use  of  him,  or  built  upon  him  more  broadly. 

575.  While  these  new  views,  supported  by  a  learning  al- 
ready mighty,  even  in  its  imperfection,  were  winning  their 
way  in  Germany,  which  had  long  been  prepared  for  them, 
English  and  French  writers  had  begun,  in  shallow  unbelief 
and  with  an  ignorance  which  despised  all  history,  to  ridicule 
all  biblical  knowledge.  And  so  it  could  not  fail  that  in  Ger- 
many also,  where  Science,  by  her  earnest  investigation,  was 
shaking  with  mighty  hand  the  decayed  structure  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  the  unbidden  spirits  of  disorder  should  press 


THE   ILLUMINATION.  595 

in  to  help.  Yet  they  were  neither  so  numerous  nor  so  danger- 
ous as  their  foreign  models.  At  the  first,  however  violent  or 
contemptuous  they  might  be,  their  source  was  seldom  hatred 
of  the  divine  in  itself,  or  a  jealous  misunderstanding  of  it.  In 
their  too  hasty  demolition,  they  decried,  in  the  name  of  the 
Illumination,  the  Christianity  of  the  Church  as  priestcraft,  and 
with  cynical  insolence  brought  forward  its  own  records  as  wit- 
nesses against  it.  They  talked  of  the  Bible  in  the  common, 
vulgar  tone,  and  allowed  themselves  to  speak  in  an  intoxica- 
tion of  conceit  of  the  enjoyment  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  and 
without  shame  at  their  own  nakedness. 

Retrospect  of  the  history  of  Deism  and  Naturalism  in  England  and 
France  ;  cf.  §  341.  G.  V.  Lechler,  Geschichte  des  etigliachen  Deismus,  Stuttg. 
1841  ;  Winer,  Tkeol.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  I.  377  If.  Here  cf.  by  way  of  example,  Th. 
Woolston  (f  1733),  Discourse  on  the  Miracles  of  our  Saviour,  6th  ed.  1729, 
the  gospel  history  as  an  allegory  ;  see  Rosenmiiller,  Hist,  int.,  I.  248  ;  (Vol- 
taire) La  Bible  enjin  expliquee  par  plusieurs  aumoniers  de  S.  M.  le  roi  de 
Prusse,  Gen.  1776  ;  (Von  Holbach)  Histoire  critique  de  J.  C.  (1770?)  with 
the  motto  :  "  Ecce  homo.  Pudet  me  generis  humani  cujus  mentes  et  aures  talia 
ferre  potuerunt.     Augustine." 

Related,  explaining  the  gospel  history  as  an  astronomical  symbol :  (C.  E. 
Wiinsch)  Horus,  oder  astrognost.  Endurtheil  ilher  die  Ojfenb.  Joh.,  die  mess. 
Weissagungen  und  iiber  Jesum  und  seine  Jiinger,  1783  ;  Dupuis,  Origine  de 
tous  les  cultes,  P.  1795,  3  vols.  4°,  containing,  III.  185  :  Examen  d'un  ouvrage 
phrygien  contenant  la  doctrine  apocal.  du  soleil  equinoxial  du  printemps  sous  le 
symbole  de  Vagneau.  Warmed  over  again  by  the  Jew  F.  Nork  in  many  writ- 
ings, 1835  ft". 

Against  Christianity  as  the  absolute  religion,  with  attacks  upon  the  moral 
character  of  its  founder  :  H.  S.  Reimarus  (f  1765)  and  the  Wolfenbiittel 
Fragments  (in  Lessing's  Beitrdge,  III.,  IV.,  1774,  and  later  separately),  a 
complete  text  of  which  not  until  1851  f.,  in  Niedner's  Zdtschr.  (unfinished). 
D.  F.  Strauss,  H.  S.  Reimarus,  L.  1862. 

The  opposite  tendency,  reduction  of  Christian  theology  to  a  system  of 
ethics,  philanthropy,  Jesuit  hunting  :  F.  Nicolai,  bookseller  in  Berlin,  and  his 
Allg.  deufsche  Bibllothek,  1765-1807;  C.  T.  Damm,  at  Berlin  (f  1774),  Uebers. 
des  N.  T.,  1764  ff.,  3  vols.  4°;  C.  F.  Bahrdt  (son  of  J.  F.  Bahrdt,  §  581),  a 
theological  adventurer,  not  without  gifts  ;  see  his  Selbstbiographie,  1790,  4 
vols.  ;  D.  Pott,  Leben  Bahrdt's,  1790,  unfinished  (f  1792);  Glaubensbekennt- 
niss,  1779  ;  Brief e  iiber  die  Bibel  im  Volkston,  Halle,  1782,  6  vols.  ;  Ausfilh- 
rung  des  Plans  und  Zwecks  Jesu,  B.  1783,  12  vols.  ;  Analyt.  Erkl.  der  Epp., 
1787,  3  vols.  ;  earlier,  exegetical  monographs  on  the  O.  T.  He  is  more 
widely  known  by  his  translation  of  the  N.  T.,  Die  neuesten  Offenbarungen 
Gottes  in  Erzdhlungen  und  Briefen,  Riga,  1773,  3d  ed.,  B.  1783  ;  an  exquisite 
satire  upon  it  (printed  anonymously,  Giessen,  1774)  in  Goethe's  works.  His 
O.  T.  under  the  title  Die  kleine  Bibel,  1780,  is  not  a  translation  but  a  poetical 
pot-pourri,  and  professes  to  give  the  cream  of  Hebrew  history  and  literature. 
J.  M.  Goze,  Beweis  dass  die  Bahrdt'sche  Uebers.  eine  vorsdtzliche  Verfdlschung, 
etc.,  Hamb.  1773.  See  in  general  Gehren,  in  the  Halle  Encykl.,  I.  7.  (C. 
Venturini,  preacher  in  Brunswick)  NatUrllche  Geschichte  der  grossen  Pro- 
pheten  von  Nazareth,  1800  ;  Geschichte  des  Urchristenthums,  1807;  together,  6 
vols.     Writings  of  C.  C.  v.  Langsdorff,  of  Heidelberg,  1827  ff. 

E.  F.  C.  Oertel,  at  Anspach,  Gospel  and  Epistle  of  John,  1795  ;  Ep.  to  the 
Romans,  1793  ;  "  translated  free  from  Hebraisms  and  philosophically  tested 
for  the  restoration  of  the  pure  Christianity  of  reason." 


596  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

676.  The  phenomena  just  described,  however,  remained  only- 
isolated,  and  there  separated  themselves  from  the  fieer  thuiking 
theologians  a  school  ot"  rationalists,  who  set  themselves  at  work 
in  scientific  ways  and  methods  to  combat  the  old  system. 
Exegesis  was  one  of  their  principal  weapons  for  defense  and 
even  for  attack.  A  so-called  psychological  interpretation  pro- 
cm"ed  anew  fur  the  gospel  accounts  the  right  to  a  place  in  the 
natural  order  of  things,  though  often,  it  must  be  confessed, 
simply  replacing  the  miraculous  by  the  extravagant;  a  so-called 
historical,  made  the  prophets  to  predict  what  was  past;  finally, 
a  so-called  notiological,  otherwise  and  less  pretentiously  called 
that  of  the  sound  human  reason,  brought  the  Apostles  them- 
selves into  the  number  of  the  Rationalists.  For  the  most 
worthless  part  of  Sender's  legacy  had  been  the  first  to  be  ap- 
propriated. Since  faith  was  lost,  men  comforted  themselves 
with  the  assumption  that  it  had  never  existed;  and  it  was  the 
fate  of  this  rationalism,  which  counted  among  its  disciples 
men  otherwise  worthy  of  honor,  never  to  be  able  to  get  out  of 
the  role  of  negation,  and  to  carry  this  lack  of  power,  or  lack 
of  skill,  as  one  may  choose  to  call  it,  with  them  from  dogmatics 
into  exegesis. 

In  general  tlie  rationalistic  tendency  of  that  period  obtained  a  mighty  im- 
pulse both  from  Sender  and  from  Kant  (§  577),  but  it  was  neither  a  product 
of  the  latter's  j^hilosophy  nor  an  heir  of  the  spirit  of  historical  investi- 
gation of  the  former,  who  had  left  so  much  to  do  and  to  test,  most  of  all  in 
that  which  he  had  himself  already  tested  and  done.  Rationalism  had  no 
inclination  whatever  toward  historical  views  of  things,  on  the  contrary  a 
peculiar  necessity  for  theorizing,  in  which,  however,  it  got  scarcely  farther 
than  clearing  the  grouiul,  seldom  to  laying  new  foundations  and  building 
upon  them.  Its  appeal  to  the  Bible  proceeded  from  self-deception,  if  not 
from  something  worse.  It  had  no  aspiration  after  the  ideal.  For  the  so- 
called  higher  criticism  there  was  neither  prejiaratory  knowledge  nor  acute- 
ness  sufficient  ;  in  material  things  there  was  some  good  subordinate  work 
done.  Yet  fairness  demands  tliat  we  should  not  forget  that  this  reduction 
of  the  biblical  history  and  teaching  to  general  laws  of  experience  and 
thought  was  to  the  minds  of  most  a  defense  of  them  against  malicious  at- 
tacks, or  at  least  a  safeguard  against  unfavorable  judgments,  and  that  not- 
withstanding all  its  inner  weakness  it  was  strong  enough  to  avert  a  greater 
danger.     Cf.  (J.  F.  Rohr)  Brlefe  ilber  den  Rationalismua,  Zeitz,  1813. 

W.  A.  Teller  (son  of  R.  Teller,  §  567  ;  f  1804),  at  Helmstadt  and  Berlin, 
Worterhuch  des  N.  T.  zur  Erklilrung  der  chrlstl.  Lehre,  1772  and  freq.,  etlii- 
cizing  in  contents  ;  dogmatic  writings  ;  additions  to  Turretin,  §  568  ;  Ueher 
die  neuere  Schriftauslegung,  1801.  (See  Tholuck,  in  Herzog's  Encyld.)  [F. 
Nicolai,  Geddchtnissschrift  aaf  Teller,  1807.] 

H.  E.  G.  Paulus,  at  Jena  and  Heidelberg  (f  1851),  beside  many  smaller 
writings,  also  dogmatic  and  philosophical,  very  unimportant,  upon  the  O.  T., 
in  particular,  Phdolog.  krit.  u.  histor.  Commentar  iiher  das  N.  T.,  1800  ff., 
Pts.  I.-IV.  (Gospels) ;  Exeget.  Handbuch  iiher  die  drei  ersten  Em.,  1830, 3  vols.; 
Lehen  Jesu,  1828;  Epp.  of  John,  1829  ;  Galatians  and  Romans,  1831;  Hebr., 
1833  ;  Ueher  bihlhche  Theologie,  in  the  Oppos.  Schrift.,  1829,  II. ;  Skizzen  aus 
meinem  Leben,  1839.  C.  A.  v.  Reicldiu-Meldegg,  Paulus  und  seine  Zeit, 
Stuttg.  1853,  2  vols. 


RATIONALISM.  697 

J.  O.  Thiess,  at  Kiel  (f  1810),  Das  N.  T.  oder  die  he'd.  Biicher  der  Christen 
neu  ilbersetzt  mit  einer  durchaus  anwendbaren  Erlicirung,  1794  ft'.,  Pts.  I.-IV.; 
Neuer  krit.  Commentar  iiher  das  N.  T.,  1804,  Pts.  I.,  II.  ;  Selhsthiographie, 
1801  f.  J.  C.  K.  Eckenuaiin,  at  Kiel  (f  1836),  Erkldrung  aller  dunkeln  Stellen 
des  N.  T.  (a  paraphrase),  1806  ft'.,  3  vols.;   Theol.  Beitrdge,  1790  fl:.,  6  vols. 

Exeget.  Handb.  des  A.  T.  (by  Hcipfiier  or  Naclitigal  ?),  1797  ft.,  8  vols.,  un- 
finished ;  (F.  L.  Roper)  Exeget.  Handb.  des  N.  T.,  1788  ft.,  19  vols.,  frequently 
printed  ;  (G.  C.  Horst,  J.  L.  W.  Scherer,  L.  C.  Rullmann,  and  other  Hessian 
clergymen)  Bibelcommentar  zum  Handgebrauch  fur  Prediger  und  Laien  nach 
den  jetzigen  Interpretationsgrundsdtzen,  1799  ft'.,  7  vols.  ;  Der  Schriftforscher, 
zur  Belebung  eines  grundlichen  Bibelstudiums  und  Verbreitung  der  reinen  ver- 
schonernden  Religion,  by  J.  L.  W.  Scherer  (f  1825),  1803-1805  ;  his  Wei- 
hungen  der  Propheten,  1804  ;  Weissagungen  des  N.  T.,  1803  ;  James,  1799, 
and  others.  J.  J.  Stolz,  at  Bremen  (f  1821),  Erlduterungcn  zum  N.  T.,  1796 
f.,  6  vols.  W,  C.  Thurn,  Reine  Uebers.  der  Bergrede  Jesu  nach  den  Grund- 
sdtzen  der  praktischen  Vernun/t,  1799.  C.  G.  Hensler,  at  Kiel  (f  1812),  writ- 
ings on  the  O.  T.  and  some  of  the  Epistles. 

H.  Corrodi,  at  Zurich  (f  1793),  and  others,  Beitrdge  zur  Beforderung  des 
verniinfiigen  Denkens  in  der  Religioti,  1780-1794.  (On  him  see  Maurer,  in  the 
Beitrdge,  Heft  19.)  W.  F.  Hezel,  at  Giessen  and  Dorpat  (f  1824),  Schrift- 
forscher, 1790  ft.  ;  Bibel  mit  Anmerkk.,  1781  ff.,  10  vols.  ;  Canticles,  John, 
Hebrews,  Psalms,  and  other  books  ;  Geist  der  Philos.  u.  Sprache  der  alten 
Welt,  1795.  H.  P.  C.  Henke  (f  1809),  at  Helmstiidt  ;  see  §  579  ;  Opuscula, 
1802,  and  his  Leben  by  Bollmann  and  Wolff,  1816.  J.  A.  Bolten,  at  Altona 
(t  1807),  the  N.  T.,  1792  ff.,  6  vols.,  under  several  special  titles.  J.  F.  C. 
Loffler,  at  Berlin,  Frankf .  a.  d.  O.,  and  Gotha  (f  1816),  Kleine  Schriften,  1817, 
3  vols. 

J.  Schulthess,  at  Ziirich  (f  1836),  Exeget.  theol.  Forschungen,  1815  ff., 
8  vols. ;  Theol.  Annalen  u.  Nachrichten,  1826-1831 ;  J.  V.  Henneberg,  pastor  in 
Gotha  (t  1831),  commentaries  on  the  narrative  of  the  passion,  Matthew,  etc., 
1829  ff.  ;  G.  F.  Dinter  (f  1831),  at  Kouigsberg,  Schullehrerbibel,  1824  and 
freq.,  which  aroused  much  controversy;  see  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1825,  III., 
633  ;  Fuhrmann's  Handb.,  1836,  p.  157. 

Collections  of  explanations  of  mii'acles,  1800  ff.,  mostly  by  unknown 
authors.  —  The  dogmatic  and  ethical  writings  were  properly  philosophical 
treatises  or  systems  set  with  a  selection  of  favorable  biblical  quotations. 
Just  so  the  beginnings  of  a  biblical  theology  which  were  made  at  that  time, 
i.  e.,  the  first  attempts  to  construct  the  Pauline  system,  Ritter,  Leun,  Cludius, 
Bohme,  see  §  59.  By  the  last  (at  Altenburg,  f  1840)  also  :  Religion  Jesu, 
1825  ;  Religion  der  Apostel,  1829  ;  commentary  on  Romans,  1806  ;  on  He- 
brews, 1825  ;  and  a  "  Neue "  Theorie  der  Auslegungskunst  (in  Scherer's 
Schriftforscher,  II.  1),  which  naively  admits  that  exegesis  arrives  objectively 
only  at  probabilities,  and  consequently  must  be  comjjleted  by  subjective 
philosophic  methods. 

677.  Partly  to  satisfy  its  sense  of  consistency,  but  partly 
also  mistaking  its  vocation,  the  philosophy  which  prevailed  at 
the  end  of  the  last  century  attempted  to  render  the  Bible,  to 
which,  so  far  as  its  dogmatic  and  historical  contents  were  con- 
cerned, it  was  perfectly  indifferent,  more  fruitful  by  means  of 
a  peculiar  exegesis.  Proceeding  from  the  postulates  of  the 
practical  reason,  and  relying  on  the  saying  of  the  Apostle,  that 
all  Scripture  inspired  by  God  is  profitable  for  instruction  and 
improvement,  it  demanded  from  every  letter  of  a  written  reve- 
lation a  meaning  in  harmony  with  the  laws  discovered  by  itself 


598  HISTOEY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

and  pointing  directly  to  them.  Whether  Kant's  design  was 
in  this  ethical  exposition  to  bring  into  favor  a  modernized  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  or  whether  he  confounded  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  with  its  application,  is  a  question  upon 
which  there  are  differing  opinions.  Certain  it  is  that  the 
proposed  hermeneutical  rule  found  no  favor  even  with  the 
rationalists,  who  were  already  traveling  another  road,  and  was 
wrecked  by  the  spiritless  use  made  of  it  in  practice.  This 
attempt  to  rear  a  new  structure  on  the  ruins  of  the  old  was 
also  a  failure. 

Immanuel  Kant,  at  Koiiigsberg  (f  1804),  Die  Religion  innerhalh  der 
Grenzen  der  hlossen  Vernunft,  1793  [E.  tr.  Religion  loithin  the  Boundary  of 
Pure  Reason,  Edinb.  1838].  Kinship  of  the  principle  with  the  old  tropology, 
for  which  the  critical  philosophy  was  too  nnpoetical  and  poor  in  imagination. 
—  It  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  here  its  further  relations  to  theology  (§  571). 
[See,  on  Kant's  religious  views  :  Piinjer,  Die  Rellgionslehre  Kants,  Jena, 
1874  ;  P.  Bridal,  La  Phihisophie  de  la  Religion  de  Kant,  Laus.  1876.  Biog- 
raphy :  J.  H.  W.  Stuckenberg,  A  Life  of  Kant,  Lond.  1882.  See  also  Schafi- 
Herzog  Encycl.,  Art.  KantJ] 

The  great  number  of  those  who  took  pains  to  controvert  Kant's  herme- 
neutical rule  is  remarkable,  since  the  most  of  them  had  already  unconsciously 
made  use  of  it  (in  a  sense,  at  least),  and  were  constantly  practicing  it : 
J.  G.  Rosenmiiller,  ]\Iethodol.,  p.  67  ff. ;  his  Histor.  interpr.,  I.  250  ;  Nosselt, 
Animadv.  in  sensum  S.  S.  moralem,  1795  ;  Eckermann's  Beitrdge,  III.  3,  IV.; 
Paulus  and  Amnion,  in  Hiinlein's  Journal,  VIII.  749,  IX.  143  ;  A.  C.  Stauss, 
Utrum  philosophica  Kantii  Scr.  interpr.  admitti  possit  f  Vit.  1795  ;  Schmidt,  in 
his  Bibl.,  I.  588  ;  (C.  W.  Hebenstreit)  Obss.  ad  moralem  interpr.  S.  S.,  1796  ; 
various  essays  in  Henke's  Mag.,  II.  623,  V.  261,  VI.  140  ;  N.  Mag.,  I.  377; 
Stiiudlin's  Beitrdge,  V,  336 ;  Augusti's  Neue  Blatter,  I.  3,  p.  63  ;  Monatsschrift, 
III.  109  ;  Bauer,  Hermeneutica  V.  T.,  p.  45  ;  Meyer,  Hermeneutik  des  A.  T., 
II.  631  ;  H.  Planck,  Interpr,  philon.,  p.  68  ;  Halm,  in  the  Studien,  1830,  II. 
301 ;  G.  N.  Molin,  De  morali,  etc.,  Abo,  1805. 

In  accord  with  him,  an  anonymous  writer  in  Hiinlein's  Journal,  III.  461  ; 
another  in  Augusti's  Neue  Blatter,  III.  1,  p.  42.  C.  W.  Penzenkuffer,  in 
Henke's  Mag.,  III.  379  ;  his  Beitrdge  zur  Erkldrung  der  Stellen  iiber  das 
iryevfia  oiyiov,  1796.  —  His  contemporaries  were  evidently  too  thoroughly  pos- 
sessed by  the  conviction  of  the  possibility  of  ex|}laining  the  biblical  miracles 
naturally  to  be  inclined  to  accept  the  spiritualizing  hermeneutics.  Cf.  in 
general  Fliigge  (§  571),  I.  98  if. 

Closely  related  in  results,  though  of  very  different  origin  :  F.  H.  C.  La- 
sinsky,  at  Bacharach  (f  1836),  Die  Offenh.  des  Lichts  im  Freudenworte  der 
vier  Evangelisten,  1836,  2  vols. 

In  J.  G.  Fichte's  Anvmsung  zum  seligen  Leben,  1806  [translated  by  W. 
Smith,  in  Popular  Writings  of  J.  G.  Fichte,  Lond.  1847-1849,  2  vols.,  ncwed. 
1871],  the  attempt  was  made  incidentally  (p.  170  ff.),  and  without  necessity 
in  the  system,  to  draw  Jesus  and  John  into  the  interest  of  transcendental 
idealism,  but  neither  theology  nor  the  public  took  any  notice  of  it.  See  V. 
F.  Baur,  Verhciltniss  der  wissenscliaftlichen  und  praktischen  Theolog,  p.  171. 
[O.  Pfleiderer,  Johann  Gottlieb  Fichte,  Stuttg.  1877  ;  F.  Zimmern,  /.  G. 
Fichte's  Religions  -  Philosophie,  B.  1878  ;  R.  Adamson,  Fichte,  Edinb.  and 
Lond.  1881.] 

578.  Before  the  critical  philosophy  had  fairly  exhausted  its 
powers  in  extracting  everywhere,  after  its  fashion,  the  prac- 


KANT  — HERDER.  599 

tical  good  from  the  shell  of  the  letter,  aesthetic  taste,  in  the 
freshness  of  youth,  hud  freed  itself  from  the  fetters  of  the 
schools,  and  had  made  for  itself  a  path  which  the  systema- 
tizers  and  the  men  of  science  could  not  follow.  It  was  Johann 
Gottfried  Herder,  more  poet  than  theologian,  but  for  that  rea- 
son only  the  more  lovely,  who  understood  how  to  open  this 
door  of  the  sanctuary,  the  longest  closed.  How  much  he  gave 
up  of  the  old  faith,  or  accepted  of  the  new,  may  be  difficult  to 
say  ;  but,  notwithstanding  all  the  uncertainty  of  his  results, 
all  the  looseness  of  his  method,  all  the  defects  of  his  historical 
and  linguistic  knowledge,  he  was,  in  consequence  of  his  relig- 
ious fervor  and  pure  imagination,  his  warm  feeling  for  nature 
and  his  fiery  eloquence,  the  best  apologist  in  the  sense  of  his 
time.  His  interpretations  may  all  be  improved  upon  now,  but 
the  delight  and  the  inspiration  which  they  caused  live  on  in- 
destructible in  the  soul.  His  mind,  in  which  manifest  earnest- 
ness was  united  with  dreamy  enthusiasm  to  combine  the  best 
in  opposite  ways  of  thinking,  could  find  admirers  but  no  disci- 
ples. 

If  it  were  necessary  to  seek  a  predecessor  for  Herder,  we  should  think, 
before  all,  of  Klopstock,  the  author  of  the  Messiah,  whose  theology  was  still 
firm  externally,  but  internally  no  longer  had  any  real  stability. 

J.  G.  Herder,  at  AVeimar  (f  1803),  Theol.  Werke,  12  vols.,  freq.  ;  includ- 
ing, among  other  things  :  Aelteste  Urkunde  des  Menschengeschlechts,  1774  ; 
Briefe  Jacohi  und  Judd,  1775  ;  Lieder  der  Liebe,  die  dltesten  und  schunsten  aus 
dem  Morgenlande,  1778  ;  Maran  Atha,  das  Buck  von  der  Zukunfl  des  Herrn 
(Revelation  of  John),  1779 ;  Briefe  das  Studium  der  Thcologie  betreffend, 
1780,  2  vols.  ;  Vom  Geiste  der  Hebr.  Poesie,  1782,  2  vols.  ;  Vom  Erloser  der 
Menschen  nach  den  drei  ersten  Evv.,  1796  ;  Vom  Gottes  Sohn  der  Welt  Heiland 
nach  Joh.,  1797. 

Herder's  Leben,  by  C.  L.  Ring,  Carlsr.  1832  ;  cf.  Doring,  in  Ersch  and 
Gruber's  Encykl.,  II.  6  ;  L.  G.  Kopp,  Etude  sur  H.  considere  comme  theologien, 
Str.  1852.  His  influence  has  been  felt  more  and  longer  in  the  treatment  of 
the  O.  T.  J.  E.  Dibbits,  Herder  als  Theolog  inz.  als  verklaarder  v.  d.  Bybel, 
Utr.  1863  ;  A.  Werner,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.,  1871,  III.  [Caroline 
Herder  (his  wife),  Erinnerungen  an  Herder  ;  E.  Herder  (his  son),  Lebens- 
bild.  A  new  edition  of  Herder's  works  ajipeared  in  Berlin,  1877  flf.,  32 
vols.] 

J.  G.  Eiehhorn  (§  19),  Comment,  in  Apocalypsin,  1791;  Job,  1800  ;  Prophets, 
1816,  3  vols.  His  writings,  full  of  philological  criticism  and  erudition,  place 
him  rather  among  the  men  of  the  following  section.  See  especially  his  Vor- 
schldge  zur  Hermeneutik,  in  the  Bibliothek,  IV.  330. 

It  is  remarkable'that  from  these  two  coryphaei  sprang  two  opposite  inter- 
terpretations  of  the  Apocalypse,  at  variance  to  a  certain  degree  with  their 
respective  literary  ideals,  both  alike  erroneous,  and  each  defended  by  numer- 
ous disciples,  —  a  falsely  historical  one  from  Herder  (and  so  still,  among 
others,  F.  J.  ZuUig,  1834  ;  J.  G.  Tinius,  1839  ;  A.  Frantz,  1838),  and  a 
falsely  idealized  one  from  Eiehhorn  (F.  W.  Hagen,  1796  ;  Exeget.  Handb., 
1802  ;  F.  H.  Lindemann,  1816  ;  F.  A.  L.  Matth^i,  1828  :  E.  F.  C.  OerteL 
1835). 

Here  also  belong  C.  W.  JustI,  at  Marburg  (f  1846.  E.  Henke,  Memoria 
Justii),  Nationalgesange  der  Hebr.,  1803, 3  vols. ;  Blumen  althebraischer  Dicht' 


600  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

kunst,  1809,  2  vols.  ;  Sionitische  Harfenklange,  1829  ;  Joel,  Amos,  Micah, 
Nahum,  Habakkiik,  1792  ff.,  5  vols.  ;  Job,  1840.  F.  W.  C.  Umbreit,  at 
Heidelberg  (f  1800.  See  UUmann  and  Riehm,  in  the  Studien,  1802,  III.), 
Kohekt,  1818, 1820, 1849,  tbree  different  works  ;  Canticles,  1823,  1839  ;  Job, 
1824,  and  freq.  ;  Proverbs,  1826  ;  Prophets,  3841  ff.,  4  vols.,  and  many  es- 
says in  the  Studien  and  Kritiken,  with  a  well-defined  tendency  to  blend  the 
element  of  religious  edification  with  the  poetical. 

579.  From  these  various  tendencies,  in  part  antagonistic,  in 
part  shading  off  one  into  another,  and  all  alike  wenk  from  a 
common  uncertainty  of  principles,  there  finally  struggled  forth 
a  hermeneutical  principle  which  claimed  the  supremacy,  and 
for  a  long  time  actually  maintained  it  almost  without  opposi- 
tion ;  the  principle  of  the  grammatico-historical  interpretation. 
As  for  all  literature,  so  also  for  the  understanding  of  the  sacred 
writings,  there  was  demanded  a  thorough  linguistic  knowledge 
and  an  acquaintance  with  the  horizon  of  the  writer  in  religious 
and  arch  ecological  respects,  which  was  to  be  obtained  from 
historical  study.  In  comparison  with  recent  practices  this  de- 
mand was  a  very  moderate  one,  and  no  party  either  could  or 
would  longer  deny  it.  The  question  was  not  whether  it  should 
be  regarded  as  established,  but  whether  it  should  be  regarded 
as  sufficient. 

C.  A.  G.  Keil,  at  Leipzig  (f  1818),  De  historica  II.  ss.  interpretatione  ejusque 
necessitate,  1788  ;  Lehrbuch  der  Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.  nach  Grundsdtzen  der 
gramm.-histor.  Interpretation,  1810  ;  Vertheidicjung  der  gramm.-hist.  Interpre- 
tation, in  his  Analekten,  1. 1  ;  Opuscula,  1821,  2  vols.  J.  J.  Griesbach  (§  412), 
Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.,  1815.  C.  D.  Beck  (at  Leipzig  ; 
f  1832),  Monogrammata  hermeneutices,  1803.  G.  W.  Meyer  (§  59  ;  at  Got- 
tingen  and  Erlangen  ;  f  1816),  Hermeneutik  des  A.  T.,  1799,  2  vols.  J.  G. 
Gabler  (son),  De  hist.  II.  N.  T.  interpretationis  indole,  1823.  J.  E.  R.  Kauffer 
(at  Dresden),  Regeln  zum  Verstandniss  der  h.  S.,  in  the  Scichs.  Studien,  I.  1. 
G.  Seyffarth,  in  Bertholdt's  Jowma/,  XV.  113. 

W.  N.  Freudentheil,  De  codice  s.  more  in  reliquis  antiquis  lihris  solenni  in- 
genue interpretando,  Chemn.  1791  ;  J.  Asboth,  De  interpr.  cod.  s.  ad  communia 
interpretandi  principia  revocata,  Gott.  1791. 

S.  G.  Bretschneider  (at  Wittenberg  and  Gotha  ;  f  1848),  Histor.  dogma- 
tiscTie  Auslegung  des  N.  T.,  1806,  in  which  what  might  be  called  the  Jewish 
analogy  of  the  faith  was  given  the  place  which  the  older  hermeneutics  had 
given  to  the  Christian. 

Amono-  periodicals  in  which  this  point  of  view  was  in  the  main  advocated, 
thongh  in  some  cases  with  a  stronger  leaning  toward  rationalism  (§  576), 
may  be  mentioned  (beside  the  well-known  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  published  at 
Jena,  1785-1803,  at  Halle,  1804-1849,  in  its  theological  articles)  the  Theolog. 
Journal  (Neue,  Neueste,  Kritische,  etc.)  edited  under  changing  titles  by  Hiin- 
lein.  Amnion,  and  Paulus,  1793-1798  ;  by  Gabler,  1798-1811 ;  by  Amnion 
and  Bertholdt,  1813-1823  ;  by  Winer  and  Engelhardt,  1824:-18'19.  —  Amialen 
der  theolog.  Literatur,  by  Hassencamp,  afterward  by  Wachler,  1789-1823 ; 
Gottingische  Bihliothek,  by  Schleusner  and  Sfaudlin,  1795-1801.  — il/a^razm 
(afterward  Museum)  fiir  Religionsphilosophie,  Exegese  u.  Kirchengeschichte,  by 
Henke,  1794-1806.— Augusti's  Theol.  Blatter,  1796-1800;  Theol.  Monats- 
schrift,  1801-2.  —  Analekten  fiir  das  Studium  der  exeget.  u.  systemat.  Theologie, 
by  Keil  and  Tschirner,  1813-1822.  —  Eichhorn's  Repertorium  fiir  bibl.  u.  mar- 


GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION.  601 

genl.  Literatur,  1777-1786  ;  his  Allg.  Bibl.  der  bibl.  Literatur,  1787-1801  ; 
Neues  Repertorium,  by  Pauliis,  1790-1791  ;  his  Memorahilien  fur  Religionsge- 
schichte  u.  Bibelstudium,  1791-1796,  and  many  smaller  collections. 

580.  For  aside  from  the  fact  that  the  hermeneutical  formula 
propounded  bad  no  point  of  contact  whatever  with  either  the 
religious  needs  of  the  church  or  the  scientific  needs  of  the 
school,  the  management  of  it  gave  room  for  doubt  whether  an 
impartial  apprehension  of  the  historical  point  of  view  was  pos- 
sible on  the  part  of  such  expositors,  since  their  exegesis  was 
too  closely  connected  with  their  already  completed  theological 
system.  In  reality  it  was  chiefly  a  rationalism  in  pliilological 
matters  not  always  conscientious,  in  historical  questions  not  al- 
ways unprejudiced,  and  either  thrusting  religious  things  into 
the  background  or  emptying  them  of  their  meaning,  which 
adopted  this  formula.  It  thought  too  much  about  the  Jews 
and  knew  too  little  of  Christ.  Yet  in  the  first  part  of  our 
century  it  had  been  so  thoroughly  transfused  into  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  the  Protestant  theology  of  Germany  that  it  in  part  did 
not  recognize,  and  in  part  has  outlived,  the  victory  of  the  sys- 
tems coming  after  it.  And  the  way  was  prepared  for  this  vic- 
tory by  its  own  principle,  which  for  the  most  part  it  so  poorly 
followed,  of  objective  interpretation  ;  it  likewise  dug  the  grave 
of  its  explanations  of  the  miracles  by  the  hypothesis  of  myths. 

J.  B.  Koppe,  at  Gottingen  (f  1791),  Novum  Testamentum  perpetua  annota- 
tione  illustratum,  1778-1826,  most  of  it  in  several  editions,  but  unfinished. 
By  the  founders  only  a  few  epistles  ;  continuations  and  improvements  by  J. 
H.  Heinrichs,  at  Burgdorf,  D.  J.  Pott,  at  Gottingen  (f  1838),  T.  C.  Tychsen, 
at  Gottingen  (f  1831),  and  others.  There  are  lacking  the  four  Gospels,  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  2  Peter,  John,  and  Jude.  —  S.  G.  Lange,  at 
Jena  and  Rostock  (f  1823),  Joh.  Schriften,  1795  £f.,  3  vols. 

J.  F.  Schleusner,  at  Gottingen  and  Wittenberg  (f  1831),  Lexicon  in  N.  T., 
1792,  and  freq.,  the  exegetical  manual  of  the  half-taught  scholars  of  that 
time.     Cf.  my  article  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 

C.  F.  Amnion,  at  Erlangen,  Gottingen,  and  Dresden  (f  1847);  his  dog- 
matic and  polemic  writings  belong  in  part  to  the  opposite  camp,  while  the 
exegetical  and  historical  maintain  a  tolerably  decided  rationalism  ;  the  lat- 
ter belong  to  the  beginning  and  end  of  his  literary  career,  the  former  to  the 
middle.  Bihl.  TheoL,  1792,  3  vols.  ;  Lehen  Jesu,  1842  ff.,  3  vols.  ;  Fortbil- 
dung  des  Christenthums  zur  Weltreligion,  1833  f.,  4  vols.  ;  Opuscula,  1793  ; 
Nova  0pp.,  1803. 

G.  P.  C.  Kaiser,  at  Erlangen  (f  1850),  Die  bihl.  Theologie,  oder  Judaismus 
und  Christianismus  nach  der  gramm.-hist.  Interpretations-methode  und  nach  einer 
freiniUthigen  Stellung  in  die  kritisch  vergleichende  Utiiver.mlgeschichte  der  Re- 
ligionen  und  in  die  universale  Religion,  Erl.  1813  f.,  3  vols.  (The  third  vol- 
ume confesses  a  conversion  of  the  author  to  supernaturalism  ;  cf.  §  583.) 

G.  L.  Bauer,  at  Altdorf  and  Heidelberg  (f  1806),  Theol.  des  A.  T.,  1796  ; 
additions  thereto,  1801  ;  Dicta  classica  V.  T.,  1798  ;  Moral  des  A.  T.,  1803, 
2  vols.  ;  Biblische  Theol.  des  N.  T.,  1800,  4  vols.  ;  Moral  des  N.  T.,  1804,  2 
vols.;  Breviarium  theol.  bibl.,  1803  ;  Entwurf  einer  Hermeneutik des  A.u.  N.  T., 
1799;  Hermeneutica  V.  T.,  1797;  Kleine  Propheten,  1786;  Scholia  in  V.  T. 
(begun  by  J.  C.  F.  Schultz),  10  vols.,  1783  ff.,  unfinished  ;  introductory  crit- 
ical writings  on  the  O.  T.,  Geschichte  des  hebr.  Staats,  1800.  2  vols. 


602  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

J.  A.  L.  Wegscheider,  at  Halle  (f  1849),  as  a  systematic  theologian  the 
standard-bearer  of  rationalism :  Institutiones  th.  dogm.,  1815,  8tli  ed.  1844  ; 
Einl.  ins  Ev.  Joh.,  1806  ;  1  Timothy,  1810.  D.  Schulz,  at  Breslau  (f  1854), 
Hebr...  1818. 

H.  A.  Schott,  at  Jena  (f  1835),  Gal.  and  Thess.,  1834  ;  In  Jesu  sermones 
de  reditu,  1820  ;  Opuscula,  1817,  2  vols.  (His  Leben,  by  Danz,  1836,  and  by 
A..  G.  Hoffmann,  in  Illgen's  Zeitschr.,  VI.  2.) 

In  place  of  the  explanations  of  the  miracles  (§  576)  the  idea  of  the  myth 
begins  to  come  in,  at  first  applied  only  to  the  early  begimiiugs  of  the  his- 
tory :  F.  W.  J.  Schelling,  Antiquissimi  de  origine  malorum  philoaopliematis  ex~ 
plic,  1792  ;  idem,  Ueber  Mythen,  Sagen,  und  Philosopheme  der  iiltesten  Welt, 
in  Paulus'  Memor.,  V.  J.  G.  Eichhorn's  Urgeschichte  {Repert.,  IV.)  edited 
by  J.  P.  Gabler,  at  Jena  (f  1826  ;  cf.  the  Jenaer  Opp.-Schr.,  X.),  with  in- 
troduction and  notes,  1790  ff.,  3  vols.  P.  Buttmann,  various  essays  in  the 
Berl.  Monalsschr.,  1804  f.  G.  L.  Bauer,  Hebr.  Mythologie  des  A.  u.  N.  T. 
mil  Parallelen  aus  der  Mythologie  anderer  Volker,  1802.  De  Wette  (§  587), 
Kritik  der  israelit.  Geschichte,  1805. 

It  was  certainly  a  very  remarkable  delusion,  however,  to  persuade  one's 
self  (or  others)  that  he  was  still  thinking  and  writing  about  the  Bible  pre- 
cisely as  Luther  did  :  J.  F.  Krause,  Utrum  theologi  recc.  qui  S.  S.  ititerpreta- 
tionem  ad  rationem  revocant  a  Lutheri  mente  defecerint  .^   Reg.  1817. 

681.  Weak  in  their  means  and  little  satisfactory  in  their  re- 
sults as  most  of  the  endeavors  just  described  appear  to  us  to- 
day, in  their  own  time  their  advance  vras  resistless,  and  their 
dazzling  brilliancy  overwhelming.  Not  the  least  cause  of  their 
victory  was  the  fact  that  the  spirit  had  departed  from  among 
the  defenders  of  the  old  ideas.  To  the  frivolous  tribe  of  free 
thinkers,  and  to  sound  historical  criticism  as  well,  there  was 
opposed  an  apologetics  which  was  biting  out  its  last  teeth  on  the 
shell  and  never  tasted  the  kernel;  to  the  most  empty-headed 
Illumination  nonsense  and  at  the  same  time  to  a  deeply  ethical, 
world-conquering  philosophy,  a  dogmatics  into  whose  shrunken 
corpse  even  the  mightiest  of  the  watchmen  of  Zion  could  no 
longer  infuse  the  breath  of  life.  The  men  of  tradition  disap- 
peared from  one  university  after  another  and  gave  place  to  the 
disciples  of  progress.  The  theological  revolution  was  finished 
before  the  political  had  begun.  The  few  who  here  and  there 
remained  retained  their  place  in  literature  by  concession  and 
indecision. 

The  separate  features  of  this  picture  may  be  gathered  from  the  critical 
journals  of  conservative  tendency  since  the  middle  of  the  last  century  (F. 
W.  Kraft  and  others,  Nachr.  von  neuen  Biichern,  and  Neue  theol.  BibUothek, 
1741-1759  ;  E.  A.  Bertling  and  others,  Danziger  Berichte,  etc.,  1764-1781  ; 
J.  A.  Hermes  and  H.  M.  A.  Cramer,  Allg.  BibUothek  der  theol.  Lit.,  1784— 
1787),  which  at  first  were  startled  at  isolated  heterodox  phenomena,  but  did 
not  regard  it  as  yet  of  pressing  importance  to  combat  them,  afterward  took 
up  the  unequal  battle  with  the  feeling  of  insufficient  knowledge,  finally  con- 
tented themselves  with  a  confession  of  the  church  doctrine  for  themselves, 
but  otherwise  allowed  each  one  to  hold  his  faith  in  peace  ;  also  from  the 
writings  of  the  apologists,  among  whom  T.  C.  Lilienthal  (Gute  Sadie  der  gottl. 
Offenb.,  1750-1782, 17  vols.)  is  the  most  complete  and  the  most  old-fashioned, 


OLDER  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL.  603 

the  opponent  of  the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragmentist  the  most  learned  but  not  al- 
ways candid,  J.  M.  Goze,  of  Hamburg  (f  1786),  the  fairest  and  the  rudest, 
still  living  to-day  by  the  fame  of  his  opponent  (G.  R.  Rope,  /.  M.  Goze,  eine 
Rettung,  Hamb.  1860  ;  against  him,  A.  Boden,  Lessing  und  Goze,  L.  1862), 
J.  F.  Kleuker,  at  Kiel  (f  1827),  the  most  prudent  and  pious  (cf.  §  20.  Bihl. 
Sympathien  oder  Betrachtungen  iiber  die  Evv.,  1820,  unfinished  ;  cf.  H.  Rat- 
jen,  /.  F.  Kleuker,  Gcitt.  1842)  ;  also  some  others  toward  the  close  of  the 
century,  already  indebted  in  many  ways  to  the  new  ideas  ;  see  the  following 
section. 

The  Society  for  the  Defense  of  Christianity,  founded  in  1785,  at  Hague, 
has  called  forth  down  to  the  present  day  many  well-meant,  even  learned 
writings  in  the  realm  of  biblical  knowledge,  without  staying  the  course  of 
thmgs,  in  more  recent  times  without  even  opposing  it.  The  Prussian  relig- 
ious edict  of  1788  had  to  be  repealed  after  a  few  years,  after  having  given 
conclusive  proof  that  the  secular  arm  can  neither  check  the  power  of  the 
spirit  if  it  is  strong,  nor  help  it  if  it  is  weak. 

The  conservative  interpreters  and  exegetes  of  this  period,  as  a  school  no 
longer  at  war  with  the  Pietists  since  the  end  of  Losclier's  journals  (§  560), 
contended  against  neology  in  the  sweat  of  their  face,  more  to  ease  their  con- 
sciences than  because  it  could  be  of  much  use,  frequently  coarsely,  more 
often  ready  to  make  concessions,  or  in  a  gloomy  and  perplexed  spirit,  and 
little  understanding  the  times  :  I.  E.  Pfeift'er,  at  Erlangen  (f  1787),  Institu- 
tiones  hermen.,  1771  ;  J.  B.  Carpzov,  at  Helmstiidt  (f  1803),  De  interprete 
grammatico,  1750  ;  Primce  Unece  hermen.,  1790  ;  Comm.  on  Hebr.,  Rom., 
Cath.  Epp.,  since  1750  ;  J.  F.  Bahrdt  and  J.  F.  Burscher,  at  Leipzig,  G.  T. 
Zacharise,  at  Gdttingen  and  Kiel  (f  1777),  Bihl.  TheoL,  1771,  4  vols.  ;  Epp., 
6  vols.;  Einl.  in  die  Auslegungskunst,  1778  ;  G.  Less,  at  Gottingen  (f  1797), 
Regeln  der  Auslegung  fur  das  A.  T.  (in  his  Vermischte  Schriften,  1781);  F.  I. 
Schwarz,  De  Socinianismo  recentt.  interpr.,  L.  1784.  For  later  writers,  see 
the  following  section. 

582.  Firmest  of  all  amid  the  ruins  of  the  old  orthodox 
system  stood  a  small  body  of  theologians  who  had  the  courage 
to  defy  the  storm  and  to  remain  true  to  the  doctrines  of  their 
predecessors.  This  was  the  older  Tiibingen  school.  To  save 
the  sinking  ship  they  threw  overboard,  it  is  true,  a  good  part 
of  her  ballast,  but  now  the  old  theory  of  inspiration,  which 
was  the  hold  of  their  last  anchor,  the  belief  in  supernatual 
revelation,  began  to  give  way ;  and  the  hostile  forces  began  to 
sport  with  the  unsteady  craft.  Nowhere  had  they  made  more 
concessions  than  in  the  disputed  points  of  exegetical  theology ; 
but  to  no  one's  satisfaction,  and  least  of  all  to  their  own 
strengthening.  In  the  firm  and  reverent  conviction  of  the 
inseparable  connection  of  their  dogmatics  with  the  contents  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  either  unequal  to  speculation  or  distrusting 
it,  they  made  the  science  a  systematic  collection  of  biblical 
passages,  and  enjoyed  the  reputation  of  sincerity  combined 
with  limited  mental  power,  at  a  time  when  the  latter  was  often 
overestimated  and  the  former  was  rare. 

With  respect  to  grammatical  arbitrariness  they  had  no  ground  for  re- 
proaching their  opponents,  and  with  reference  to  prophecies,  types,  and 
dogmatic  proof-texts  they  were  for  the  most  part  as  uncertain  exegetically 


604  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

as  they  were  unsettled  theoretically  between  tradition  and  concession.  Con- 
tent to  have  proved  that  a  passage  might  liave  the  traditional  orthodox 
sense,  they  were  often  too  little  concerned  to  prove  that  it  must  have  it. 
Cf.  Strauss,  Streitschriften  (§  591),  Heft  1,  1837  ;  Winer,  Preface  to  his 
N.  T.  Grammar ;  E.  Reuss,  in  the  Halle  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1841,  III.  167. 
[See,  on  the  older  Tiibingen  School,  Schaff-Herzog  Encycl.,  III.,  p.  2398.] 

J.  F.  Reuss  (t  1777  ;  see  an  Ehrendenkmal  of  him,  Tiib.  1777),  controver- 
sial writings  against  Semler  and  the  theory  of  accommodation  ;  G.  C.  Storr 
(f  1805),  De  sensu  historico,  1778  ;  Ep.  to  the  Hebr.,  1789  ;  0pp.  ad  inlerpr. 
S.  S.,  1796,  3  vols.,  containing  among  other  things  notes  on  the  Gospels  and 
minor  epistles  ;  Doctrlnce  chr.  pars  theoretica  e  ss.  II.  repetiia,  1793  and  freq. 

J.  F.  Flatt  (t  1821),  Vorless.  uber  die  paul.  Epp.,  1825  ff.  ;  Opusc.  acad., 
1826  ;  E.  G.  Bengel  (grandson  of  J.  A.  Bengel  ;  f  1826),  Opusc.  acad.,  1834  ; 
see  Denkw.  zur  Erinnerung,  etc.,  1826  ;  Archiv,  VIII.  723  ;  J.  C.  F.  Steudel 
(f  1838 ;  see  on  him  Tiib.  Zeitschr.,  1838, 1.),  Ueher  die  Behandlung  der  Sprache 
der  h.  S.  als  einer  Sprache  des  h.  G.,  1822  ;  Blicke  in  die  alttest.  OJfenb.,  in  the 
Tub.  Zeitschr.,  1835,  I.,  II.  ;  Ueber  Auslegung  der  Propheten,  ibid.,  1834,  I. ; 
Ueber  das  Ev.  Joh.,  ibid.,  1835,  I.  ;  Ueber  Tnspiratioii  der  App.,  ibid.,  1832, 
II.,  III.  ;  exegetical  dissertations  on  many  single  doctrines  in  the  same 
magazine  ;  Theol.  des  A.  T.,  1840.  J.  E.  Osiander,  on  Cormthians,  1847, 
1858. 

Flatt  and  Susskind,  Magazin  fur  christl.  Dogmatik  u.  Moral,  1796-1812. 
Bengel,  Archiv  fiir  die  Theol.,  1815-1826.  Steudel,  Tilbinger  ZeitschriftfUr 
Theol.,  1828-1840,  into  which,  however,  the  altogether  dissimilar  element  of 
the  new  (Baur)  Tubingen  school  soon  found  its  way  to  a  considerable  extent, 
§  344.  Studien  der  WUrtemb.  Geistlichkeit,  edited  by  C.  B.  Klaiber,  afterward 
by  C.  H.  Stirm,  1827-1848. 

Outside  of  Wurtemberg  also,  but  much  more  isolated,  there  appeared 
about  the  middle  of  the  century  many  other  theologians  who  as  respects 
their  spirit  might  be  placed  here,  although  less  active  in  the  particular  field 
of  Biblical  science,  and  differing  among  themselves  according  as  the  spirit  of 
dogmatic  reasonableness  or  of  popular  edification  was  the  more  prominent. 
F.  V.  Reinhard,  at  Wittenberg  and  Dresden  (f  1812),  systematic  theologian 
and  pulpit  orator,  0pp.  academica,  1808,  2  vols.  ;  Gestdndnisse,  1810  ;  Rein- 
hard's  Leben,  by  Politz,  1813. 

G.  C.  Knapp,  at  Halle  (f  1825  ;  see  Niemeyer's  Epicedien  to  his  Ande7iken), 
Scripta  varii  argumenti,  1805,  2  vols.;  Biblische  Glaubenslehre  (written  1797), 
1840.  M.  Weber,  at  Wittenberg  and  Halle  (f  1833),  many  exegetical 
treatises. 

G.  F.  Seller,  at  Erlangen  (f  1807),  De  vaticiniis,  etc.,  1783  ff.  ;  Opuscula, 
1793  ;  Weissagung  u.  Erfiillung  in  der  h.  S.,  1794  ;  Hermeneutik,  1800  ; 
Gemeinniitzige  Betrachtungen  der  neuesten  Schriften,  etc.,  1776-1800  ;  Theol.- 
kritische  Betrachtungen,  etc.,  1779-1786  ;  F.  H.  C.  Schwarz,  at  Heidelberg 
(t  1837),  Jahrb.  der  Theol,  1824-1827. 

J.  J.  Hess,  at  Zurich  (f  1828),  Ueber  die  beste  Art  die  h.  S.  zu  studiren  in 
Betracht  der  gegenwdrtigen  Lage  des  Christenthums,  1778  ;  Geschichte  der  Is- 
raeliten,  1776  ff.,  12  vols.  ;  Bibliothek  der  h.  Geschichte,  1791,  2  vols.  ;  Vom 
Reiche  Gottes,  VJl'i: ;  Geschichte  Jesu,  1768  and  freq.;  Geschichte  der  Apostel, 
1788  and  freq. 

Against  the  rationalistic  explanations  of  the  miracles  in  particular  :  W.  T. 
Lang,  in  Flatt's  Mag.,  IX.,  X.,  XI.  H.  L.  Heubner,  Miracc.  interpr.  gr. 
hist.,  Witt.  1807.  C.  G.  lingerer,  Essai  critique  sur  Vinterpr.  naturelle  des  mir., 
Str.  1842.     J.  H.  Pareau,  De  mythica  s.  cod.  interpretatione,  Traj.  1824. 

583.  Yet  they  were  not  the  only  ones  who  set  themselves 
against  the  prevailing  tendency.     From  without  their  ranks 


CONFLICT  WITH  RATIONALISM.  605 

also,  and  from  various  sides,  came  voices  wliicli  gave  loud 
warning  of  the  danger  that  must  come  from  an  apprehension 
of  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures  which  aimed  to  be  purely- 
historical,  and  had  no  religious  interest  in  them.  The  proof 
of  this  danger  was  not  difficult  to  find  in  the  instinctive 
tendency  of  the  age  to  bring  down  Christianity  into  the 
sphere  of  a  doubtful  popularity,  whereby  the  chai-acter  of  its 
founder  and  his  Apostles  was  easily  set  in  a  wrong  light,  and 
the  latter  with  fancied  impartiality  were  placed  upon  the 
same  level  with  their  contemporaries.  In  opposition  to  this 
tendency  the  originality  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  the 
Christian  idea  was  more  sharply  emphasized,  and  the  histor- 
ical exposition,  that  is  to  say,  that  which  was  commonly  so 
called,  was  attacked  as  in  itself  alone  insufficient  to  fathom  its 
full  meaning.  This  opposition,  in  part  still  dependent  upon 
the  philosophy  of  the  age,  and  rather  recoiling  from  the 
consequences  which  naturally  developed  from  the  system  of 
their  opponents  than  contending  with  them  in  respect  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  all  interpretation,  gave  rise  to 
several  mediating  attempts,  which  dignified  themselves  with 
various  unhappily  chosen  names,  but  were  connected  in  general 
by  their  common  apologetic  coloring. 

C.  F.  Staucllin,  at  Gottingen  (f  1826),  De  interpr.  hist.  II.  N.  T.  non  vnice 
vera,  1807  ;  Ueber  die  bios  histor.  Auslegung  cler  Biicher  des  N.  T.,  in 
Bertholdt's  Journal,  I.  4,  II.  1,  2.  Himself  a  rationalist  by  gradual  conver- 
sion, he  had  a  faint  idea  of  the  necessity  of  a  spiritual  contact  between  the 
interpreter  and  the  author,  and  called  ithis  the  philosophical  interpretation. 
See  his  Selbsthiographie,  edited  by  J.  T.  Hemsen,  1826.  Similarly,  J.  G.  I. 
Berger,  at  Gottingen  (f  1803),  in  his  Versuch  einer  moral.  Einl.  ins  N.  T. 
(1797  ff.,  4  vols.).  Preface  to  the  second  part. 

Very  timidly  wheeling  into  line,  C.  V.  Hauff,  at  Cannstatt  (f  1832), 
Briefe  iiber  den  Werth  schriftlicher  Religionsurkunden  und  das  Studium  dersel- 
ben,  Stuttg.  1809  ff.,  3  vols. 

C.  W.  Stein  ( Ueber  den  Begriff  und  obersten  Grundsatz  der  histor.  Interpr. 
des  N.  T.,  L.  1815)  places  regard  to  the  intellectual  and  moral  character  of 
Jesus  and  the  Apostles  by  the  side  of  the  other  hermeneutical  rules  as 
a  guide. 

C.  L.  W.  Stark,  at  Jena  (f  1818),  Beitrdge  zur  Hermeneutik,  1817  f.,  I.,  II.: 
"  The  interpreter  must  be  pervaded  by  the  same  sense  of  the  nearness  of  God 
and  of  a  direct  elevation  of  his  mental  powers  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  as 
were  Jesus  and  the  Apostles." 

G.  G.  P.  Kaiser  (§  580),  System  der  neutest.  Hermeneutik,  Erl.  1817. 

F.  H.  Germar,  at  Augustenburg  (Z)te  panharmonische  Interpretation  der  h. 
S.,  L.  1821;  Beitrag  zur  allgem.  Hermeneutik  und  deren  Anwendung  auf  die 
Theologie,  Alt.  1828  ;  Die  Mangel  der  sogen.  gramm.-hist.  eigentlich  aber  der 
Takt-Interpretation,  H.  1834  :  Kritik  der  modernen  Exegese,  in  the  Journal  fur 
Prediger,  XCV.),  demands  the  thorough  harmonj"-  of  the  meaning  discovered 
in  Scripture,  in  so  far  as  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  revelation  of  God,  with 
the  utterances  of  Christ  and  "  with  all  else  which  is  true  and  certain." 

Formulas  so  hesitating  and  indefinite  forced  no  concessions  from  rational- 
ism, either  in  theory  or  practice.     Schulthess,  Vergleichung  zwischen  gramr 


60G  HISTOEY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

matischer,  histoinscher,  und  panharmonischer  Interpretation,  in  his  Theol.  Nachr., 
1829,  III.  335  ff.  An  anonymous  writer  in  Winer's  Journal,  IV.  333  ff.  re- 
duces the  content  of  the  formula,  in  accordance  with  the  conception  of  the 
sacredness  and  inspiration  of  Scripture,  to  the  canon  that  the  exegetical 
result  to  be  obtained  must  be  worthy  of  God  and  befitting  the  destiny  of 
man,  tliat  is,  must  correspond  to  the  generally  accepted  laws  of  thought  and 
action. 

For  the  estimation  of  the  endeavors  described  here  and  in  §  579,  cf.  also 
J.  D.  Schulze,  in  Augusti's  Monatsschr.,  I.  334  ;  Hartmann,  Verhindung  des 
A.  u.  N.  T.,  p.  700  )S..;  Baumgarten-Crusius,  in  the  Jenaer  Opp.-Schrift,  I. 
1  if.;  Olshausen,  in  the  Studien,  1829,  IV.;  Liicke,  in  the  Studien,  1830,  II.; 
Uiihn,  ibidem ;  Tholuck,  Liter.  Anzeiger,  1833,  No.  22  f.,  1836,  No.  15  ff.; 
Billroth,  Preface  to  Corinthians  ;  Matthies,  Preface  to  Ephesians. 

584.  Wholly  independent  of  these  movements  of  the  theo- 
logical spirit  of  the  age,  almost  as  much  removed  from  the 
old  ideas  as  they  were  inaccessible  to  the  new,  the  Mystics 
attempted  in  more  than  one  way  to  find  in  the  Scriptures  the 
key  to  and  warrant  for  a  future  which  they,  full  either  of  fear 
or  of  disgust  for  the  world  and  its  state,  busied  themselves 
with  describing  and  living  beforehand.  Some  expected  im- 
provement from  a  mighty  stroke  of  the  Lord,  and  listened 
anxiously  and  impatiently  to  the  din  of  the  great  events  of  the 
time,  to  the  tumultuous  downfall  of  states  and  churches,  as  to 
the  precursors  of  the  near  consummation.  The  Apocalypse 
was  the  central  point  of  their  biblical  studies,  and  their 
bewildering  extravagance  is  perhaps  the  best  psychological 
commentary  on  the  enigmatical  book.  The  Suabian  prophet 
gave  them  his  arithmetic,  the  modern  Babel  the  Antichrist; 
experience  might  contradict  his  reckoning,  but  could  not 
weaken  faith  in  his  rule.  Others  set  to  work  themselves,  in 
calm  devoutness,  to  found  the  new  Jerusalem,  and  resolved  the 
book  which  predicts  it,  as  well  as  all  the  rest  of  the  sacred 
books,  into  allegories,  in  a  way  which  bears  witness  at  once  to 
their  purity  of  heart  and  to  their  dimness  of  understanding. 

The  effects  of  Bengel's  apocalyptic  ideas  had  never  really  died  out  (§  561)  ; 
but  with  the  increasing  importance  of  the  political  events  of  1789  if.  they 
put  forth  a  great  number  of  new  blossoms,  especially  in  southwestern  Ger- 
many, Alsace  and  Switzerland  included.  The  scholar  has  no  conception,  from 
the  little  of  it  which  comes  to  his  notice,  of  the  mass  of  this  literature,  which 
is  still  daily  increasing  ;  the  people  are  overwhelmed  with  it.  The  best 
known  names  are  :  M.  F.  Sender,  1794  ;  H.  P.  Ansehmink,  1796  ;  J.  H. 
Jung-Stilling,  1799  (f  1817)  ;  G.  L.  Hurter,  1800  ;  J.  G.  Klein,  Str.  1802  ; 
J.  J.  Hess,  of  Zurich,  1809  ;  R.  Salzmann,  Str.  1810  ;  H.  G.  Oberlin  (son), 
1813  ;  C.  Armbruster,  1814  ;  W.  F.  Gerken,  1814  ;  C.  F.  Leutwein,  1821; 
A.  F.  Riihle  v.  Lilienstern,  1824  ;  J.  L.  F.  Weigenmaier,  1827  ;  F.  Sander, 
1829  ;  E.  Bahnmaier,  1830  ;  J.  F.  v.  Meyer,  of  Frankfurt,  1833  ;  E.  F. 
Hopfner,  1833  ;  J.  G.  Tinius,  1836  f.  ;  F.  Bannholzer,  1837  ;  F.  Lencke, 
1839  ;  C.  Albreeht,  1840,  beside  numberless  anonymous  writers. 

In  France  and  England  also  apocalyptic  studies  were  carried  on  very  dil- 
igently, but  rather  in  the  older  orthodox  antipapal  direction.  But  recent 
times  and  extravagance  (Darby)  do  homage  to  the  arithmetical  faith  there 


MYSTICS  —  S  WEDENBORG.  607 

also  ;  F.  de  Rougemont,  Neuch.  1866  ;  B.  W.  Newton,  Lond.  1844  ;  more 
seldom  Catholicism  (J.  A.  Boost,  Darmst.  1835  ;  J.  L.  Vaisse,  P.  1852), 
Yet  the  literature  is  but  slightly  kiiowu  to  rue. 

Emmanuel  Swedenborg  (of  Stockholm  ;  f  1772)  and  his  followers  also 
make  much  of  the  Revelation  of  John,  but  the  book  is  rather  the  point  of 
departure  of  their  dogmatic  formulas  than  the  subject  of  their  exegesis.  Of 
his  writings  the  following  belong  chiefly  here  :  Arcana  ccelestia  in  Genes,  et 
Exod.,  Lond.  1749  ff.,  8  vols.  4°  ;  De  nova  Hierosolyma,  1758.  To  the  phi- 
losophers of  his  time  a  curiosity,  to  the  critics  of  our  own  an  enigma,  it  was 
not  until  our  own  days  that  this  remarkable  man,  whose  head  harbored  a 
strange  mixture  of  rationalism  and  whimsicality,  attained  authority  and  in- 
fluence, especially  in  Wiirtemberg,  France,  and  America.  (See  C.  Hang, 
in  the  Wiirtemb.  Studien,  XIV.)  Oegger,  Dictionnaire  de  la  langue  de  la  na- 
ture (P.  1831),  a  Swendenborgian  hermeueutics  in  lexical  form.  L.  Hof- 
acker,  Die  Joh.  Offenb.,  1839.     Cf.  J.  Hamberger,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 

585.  In  spite  of  all  these  attempts  to  turn  the  course  of  af- 
fairs into  a  different  channel,  or  perhaps  precisely  because  in 
these  the  weakness  of  the  older  views  made  itself  more  cleai'ly 
manifest,  the  new,  on  the  surface  of  the  science,  attained  more 
and  more  undisputed  supremacy.  The  spirit  of  the  age,  the 
opposition  to  which  had  itself  destroyed  its  right  to  be  by 
its  concessions,  had  arrived  at  a  turning-point,  a  point  where 
more  serious  questions  than  those  of  learning  arose  before  it, 
which  it  was  neither  prepared  to  solve  nor  bold  enough  to 
undertake.  But  in  the  depths,  and  unsuspected,  another  cur- 
rent had  already  grown  strong,  and  the  opportunity  to  bring  it 
to  the  surface  was  not  long  in  coming.  In  the  train  of  the 
political  restoration  of  Germany  and  Europe  came  the  religious 
and  theological  also.  Rationalism,  which  had  already  begun 
to  regard  itself  as  the  sole  occupant  of  the  field,  many  thought 
even  without  Christianity,  was  astonished  to  see  the  opponents 
it  had  supposed  conquered  enter  the  lists  anew,  and,  after  a 
hard-fought  battle,  without  having  given  up  a  single  weapon, 
to  see  the  certificate  of  death  displayed  over  its  living  body. 
Its  downfall  was  like  a  legal  trial  and  condemnation  rather  than 
a  defeat  in  battle. 

The  details  of  this  subject,  thus  far  the  most  important  in  the  history  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  belong  to  Church  History.  Here  it  may  suffice,  in 
order  to  furnish  the  motive  of  the  particulars  given  in  the  following  sections, 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  restoration  in  question  did  not  proceed 
from  a  single  starting-point  nor  have  a  single  direction,  which  fact,  together 
with  the  other  that  it  was  only  gradually  that  the  new  divergences  of  science 
came  to  consciousness  and  took  liold  upon  life,  shows  how  little  this  move- 
ment obtained  its  real  vitality  as  a  trust-gift  of  tradition  from  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  which  was  dead  of  marasmus  senilis.  Tliis  also 
enables  us  to  comprehend  the  process  of  clarification,  which  has  already  be- 
gun to  separate  its  constituents. 

Cf .  beside  the  above-mentioned  writings  on  the  modern  period  in  general : 
C.  Schwarz,  Zur  Geschichte  der  neuesten  Theol.,  1856,  3d  ed.  1864  ;  F.  Nip- 
pold,  Handh.  der  neuesten  Kirchengesch.,  Elberf.  1867  ;  F.  C.  Baur,  Kircken- 
gesch.  des  19ten  Jahrh.,  Tiib.  1862. 


608  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

586.  The  reaction  addressed  itself  now  rather  to  the  restora- 
tion of  the  theory  of  dogmatics,  again  to  the  strengthening  of 
the  religious  and  church  life  and  the  consciousness  of  commun- 
ion, and  according  as  the  one  element  or  the  other  predominated 
its  relations  without  became  more  cold  and  repellent  or  more 
generous  and  winning,  within  firmer  or  looser.  But  amid  all  the 
diversity  a  common  character  may  be  everywhere  detected  in 
the  principles  of  exegesis.  It  was  to  become  again  theological. 
The  necessity  was  maintained  with  emphasis  of  going  beyond 
the  ordinary  historical  point  of  view,  because  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  notwithstanding  all  conceivable  connection  with 
their  time,  were  yet  the  beai'ers  of  a  new  spirit,  which  was  it- 
self above  that  time  and  raised  them  above  it.  It  was  de- 
manded, therefore,  the  demand  being  stated  in  manifold  forms, 
that  the  interpreter  should  enter  into  this  spirit,  have  a  sympa- 
thy for  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures  recognized  as  a  divine 
revelation,  but  especially  that  exegesis  should  be  governed  by 
the  idea  of  the  Church,  and  by  a  religious  interest  in  the  reali- 
zation of  that  idea. 

This  appears  at  least  to  have  been  the  point  of  departure  of  the  "  theologi- 
cal "  hermeneutics,  but  it  was  not  long  an  adequate  formula  for  all  the  ten- 
dencies to  be  described  in  the  following.  The  hermeneutical  principle  was 
not  essentially  modified,  it  is  true  (compared  with  that  accepted  during  the 
period  of  rationalism),  but  its  relation  to  the  traditional  ecclesiastical  dog- 
matics changed  from  school  to  school,  from  decade  to  decade,  continually 
advancing  toward  a  stricter  conception  of  doctrine.  The  distinction  between 
the  Church  as  it  appears  in  history  and  its  ideal,  and  the  concession  that 
science  should  rule  the  former,  was  not  handed  down  to  the  second  gener- 
ation. Men  soon  began  to  claim  for  what  they  comprehended  and  disjiensed 
the  predicate  of  completeness,  and  called  their  exegesis  the  biblical,  the 
faithful,  the  spiritual,  each  denying  legitimacy  to  others. 

With  the  return  to  the  faith  of  the  fathers  came  also  a  return  to  their 
writings.  While  the  rationalists  had  quoted  nothing  but  their  own  sound 
reason,  even  among  themselves,  the  commentaries  were  now  overloaded  with 
extracts  from  Reformers  and  Church  Fathers,  like  catenae,  and  the  custom 
became  so  contagious  that  to-day  almost  every  exegete  copies  all  his  pre- 
decessors (by  preference  with  exclamation  points),  and  the  latest  commen- 
tary as  a  rule  renders  all  earlier  ones  unnecessary. 

Cf.  Kollner's  Preface  to  his  Comm.  on  Romans  ;  Theile,  in  Ersch  and 
Gruber's  Encykl.,  Art.  Interpres  (II.  19). 

587.  At  the  head  of  this  movement,  in  time  as  in  spirit, 
stood  Friedrich  Schleiermacher.  Although  not  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  critical  endeavors  of  the  century,  and  even  paving 
the  wa}!^  for  them,  he  found  within  himself  a  yet  deeper  need, 
and  a  yet  stronger  power,  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  spiritual 
nature.  He  pointed  to  the  religious  feeling  as  the  source  of 
faith  and  the  bond  of  union  in  the  Church,  and  showed  that  the 
devout  uplifting  of  the  individual  is  sustained  by  that  of  the 
whole  and  takes  its  rise  in  it.     A  powerful  dialectic  fortified 


THE   EESTORATION  — SCHLEIERMACHER.  609 

this  fundamental  thought  and  made  it  the  central  pomt  of  a 
theology  complete  on  all  sides,  before  whose  intellectual  con- 
sistency exegesis  was  obliged  to  bow,  notwithstanding  the  com- 
pleteness of  a  system  of  hermeneutics  which  was  designed  to 
protect  it.  His  pupils  and  friends  divided,  some  following 
rather  the  impulse  of  the  heart  and  of  faith,  others  the  necessity 
of  thought  and  investigation.  Yet  the  former  left  the  desire 
for  investigation  untrammeled  to  everyone,  and  the  latter  did 
not  forget  the  final  goal  of  all  science  of  God  and  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  all  sought  the  one  thing  instead  of  wrangling  over 
subordinate  points,  and  tried  to  find  amid  the  dissonances  of  the 
letter  the  higher  harmony  of  all  revelation. 

D.  E.  F.  Schleiermacher,  at  Berlin  (f  1834),  Darstellung  des  iheol.  Studi- 
ums,  1811  and  freq.  ;  Glaubenslehre,  1821  and  freq.  ;  Lehen  Jesu,  18G4. 
Among  writings  belonging  particularly  under  this  head,  the  collected  works 
(1834  tf.)  were  to  contain  his  exegetical  lectures  beside,  but  they  have  not 
appeared  ;  a  doubtful  specimen  in  the  Studien,  1832,  III.  ;  Hermeneuttk  und 
Kritik  mit  besonderer  Beziehung  auf  das  N.  T.,  1838  (cf.  §§  19,  128,  184). 
Characteristic  aversion  from  the  O.  T.  See  on  him  Llicke,  in  the  Studien, 
1834,  IV.  ;  Sack,  ibid.,  1835,  IV.  ;  Rienacker,  ibid.,  1848,  I.  ;  G.  Baur,  ibid., 
1859,  III.,  IV.  ;  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Schleiermacher^ s  Denkungsart  und  Ver- 
dienst,  1834  ;  P.  Goy,  in  the  Strassburg  Revue,  3me  Serie,  IV.,  V.  ;  Nip- 
pold,  Neueste  Kirchengesch.,  213  ff.  Schleiermacher's  Briefwechsel,  1858  ff.  4 
vols,  [translated,  in  part,  by  Fx-ederica  Rowan,  Lond.  18G0,  2  vols.  See  also 
W.  Dilthey,  Leben  Schleiermacher's,  B.  1867]. 

C.  G.  F.  Liicke,  at  Bonn  and  Gottingen  (f  1855),  Grundriss  der  neutest. 
Hermeneutik  und  ihrer  Geschichte,  1817  ;  Commentar  zu  den  johann.  Schriften, 
1820  ff.  and  freq.,  Pts.  I.-IV.  [twice  revised  and  reprinted,  1840  and  1856  ; 
partly  translated  into  English,  1837].  J.  G.  Riitze,  Die  hochsten  Principien 
der  Schrifterkldrung,  1824.  L.  Usteri,  at  Berne  (f  1833),  PawZm.  Lehrbegriff 
(§  59),  in  the  first  three  editions.  J.  L.  S.  Lutz,  at  Berne  (f  1844  ;  see  C.  B. 
Hundeshagen,  Lutz,  ein  Charakterbild),  Bibl.  Hermeneutik,  1849  ;  Bibl.  Dog- 
matik,  1847.  The  two  works  taken  together  are  a  liberal-minded  attempt  to 
reconcile  faith  and  science,  church  and  school. 

A.  Neander,  at  Berlhi,  (f  1850),  Ap.-Gesch.  (§  31)  [E.  tr.  Planting  and 
Training  of  the  Christian  Church,  Lond.  1851  ;  also  N.  Y.]  ;  Paulus  und 
Jacobus,  1840  ;  commentaries  on  particular  epistles,  from  lectures.  See 
Scherer,  in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  I.  213  ;  Kling  and  Hagenbach,  in  the  Studien, 
1851,  II.,  III.  ;  C.  UUmann,  ibid.,  1857,  I.  ;  O.  Krabbe,  Charakteristik  Me- 
ander's, 1852  [J.  L.  Jacobi,  Erinnerungen  an  August  Neander,  Halle,  1882]. 
Commentaries  by  F.  H.  Rheinwald,  at  Bonn  and  Berlin  (f  1844),  on  Philip- 
pians  ;  L.  Pelt,  at  Kiel,  on  Thessalonians  ;  Beitrug  zur  Hermeneutik,  in  the 
Kiel  Mitarbeiten,  I.  4  ;  J.  E.  Huther,  at  Schwerin,  on  Colossians,  Pastoral 
Epistles,  etc.,  in  Meyer's  N.  T.  (§  592).  C.  Frommann,  at  Jena  and  St. 
Petersburg,  Joh.  Lehrbegriff",  1839. 

L.  F.  O.  Baumgarten-Crusius,  at  Jena  (f  1843),  Bibl.  TheoL,  1828  ;  Opus- 
cula,  1836  ;  Evang.  Joh.,  1843.  Also,  but  very  meagre,  posthumous  uni- 
versity lectures  on  the  Synoptists  and  some  epistles.  (See  Eichstadt,  in  TW- 
gen's'Zeitschr.,  1844,  I.;  Von  Colin,  in  the^%.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1829,  I.  161.) 

W.  M.  L.  De  Wette,  at  Berlin  and  Basle  (f  1849),  Bibl.  Dogmatik,  1813, 

and  freq.  ;  Opuscula,  1830  ;  Kurzgefasstes  exeget.  Handb.  zum  N.  T.,  1835  ff. 

(the  posthumous  editions  mostly  of  a  different  and  even  wholly  antagonistic 

spirit) ;  Psalmen,  1811,  and  freq.     Cf .  also  §§  19,  498,  505,  580.     See  on 

39 


610  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

him  the  special  essays  of  Schenkel,  1849  ;  Hagenbach,  1850  ;  Liieke,  in  the 
Studien,  1850,  III.  ;  Colani,  in  the  Strassb.  Revue,  I.  87;  E.  Reuss,  in  the 
Allg.  Lit.  Zeitmig,  Nov.  1849  [Wiegand,  W.  M.  L.  De  Wette,  Erf.  1877;  R. 
Stiihelin,  W.  M.  L.  De  Wette  nach  seiner  theolog.  Wirksamkeit  u.  Bedeutung 
gesckildert,  Bas.  1880].  —  W.  Benecke,  at  Heidelberg  (f  1837),  on  Romans, 
1834. 

Here  also  may  be  placed,  in  accordance  with  its  general  tendency,  the 
Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1828  ff.,  under  the  management  of  C.  UUmann 
and  F.  W.  C.  Umbreit  (§  578),  of  Heidelberg,  in  which,  however,  beside 
those  mentioned  in  this  section  and  those  in  sympathy  with  them,  many  of 
those  under  §§  589  and  593  have  had  part.  Continued  by  others  essentially 
in  a  freely  conservative  spmt. 

588.  It  could  not  but  be  that  a  theology  which,  notwith- 
standing its  thoroughly  Christian  tone,  yet  gave  so  great  in- 
fluence to  the  inner  voice  of  the  individual,  would  fail  to  sat- 
isfy those  who  sought  before  all  things  a  fixed  and  immovable 
foundation,  and  were  unwilling  to  go  again  through  the  ex- 
periences of  recent  times.  They  could  obtain  this  foundation 
only  by  a  reckless  revival  of  the  past,  a  positive  ecclesiastical 
system  of  faith.  And  although  science  must  of  course  work 
on  upon  her  own  structure,  it  must  be  established,  in  order  to 
stand  firm,  upon  Bible,  confession,  and  church  order,  as  upon 
three  harmoniously  arranged  pillars.  A  positive  word  easily 
gains  adherents,  and  the  sons  of  the  rationalists  returned  with 
as  much  alacrity  to  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  as  their  fathers 
had  marshaled  themselves  under  the  banner  of  rational  Chris- 
tianity. True,  everything  did  not  become  as  it  was  before, 
nor  did  exegesis,  which  could  not  reject  the  new  in  the  lump, 
but  must  build  better  defenses  for  the  old.  Precisely  upon 
this  point,  passing  over  all  which  does  not  concern  our  special 
history,  grave  differences  have  already  broken  out  again  in  this 
very  circle,  which,  as  always,  the  age  will  suffer  to  exhaust 
themselves  according  to  their  degree  of  strength,  in  order  after- 
ward to  reconcile  them  by  the  higher  adjustment  of  new  forms 
of  thought. 

Inasmuch  as  the  theological  and  ecclesiastical  questions  which  have  called 
out  noteworthy  differences  among  the  defenders  of  orthodoxy  in  our  times 
only  gradually  came  into  prominence,  and  the  position  of  parties  was  thereby 
changed  in  many  ways,  the  grouping  (§§  588-590)  is  very  difficult,  and  in 
succeeding  years  will  become  unsatisfactory,  if  it  is  not  so  already.  Since, 
however,  we  are  here  considering  neither  Old  Lutheranism  nor  Unionism 
with  or  without  separate  confession,  but  exegesis,  in  its  relation  to  theology 
in  general,  particular  names  may  perhaps  be  differently  grouped  than  in 
practical  life.  All  those  to  be  mentioned  here  and  many  of  like  opinions 
were  united  at  their  first  appearance,  and  doubtless  still  are,  by  a  common 
opposition  to  rationalism  and  a  decided  leaning  upon  the  symbolic  doctrine 
as  the  basis  of  their  theology.  For  the  rest  I  remark  that  the  literary  in- 
formation in  the  notes  from  this  point  on  will  doubtless  seem  to  the  experi- 
enced reader  more  fragmentary  than  heretofore,  partly  because  it  is  inad- 
missible to  attempt  to  assign  to  contemporaries  their  final  places,  partly 


THE  RESTORATION  — HISTORICAL  CRITICISM.  611 

also,  and  especially,  because  the  mass  of  material  at  hand  is  much  too  great. 
The  more  names  I  should  mention,  the  more  unjust  might  seem  my  judg- 
ment of  those  not  mentioned. 

E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  at  Berlin  (f  1869),  apologetico-critical  writings  on 
the  Pentateuch,  Daniel,  Zechariah,  etc.,  1831  £f.  [E.  tr.  on  Daniel  and  Zeeh- 
ariah,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1858]  ;  Psalms,  1842  ff.,  4  vols.  [E.  tr.  Edinb.  1844- 
1848]  ;  Ecclesiastes,  1859  [E.  tr.  Phila.  1860]  ;  Apocalypse,  1849  ;  Gospel  of 
John,  1861,  3  vols.  Evang.  Kirchenzeitung,  since  1827.  Cf.  Scherer,  Heng- 
stenberg considere  comme  exegete  du  N.  T.,  in  the  Revue  de  Th'ol.,  II.  65. 
[Bachmann,  Hengstenberg  nach  s.  Leben  u,  Wirken,  Gutersloh,  1876-1879,  2 
vols.]     See  also  the  following  section. 

A.  Tholuck,  at  Halle,  on  Romans,  1824  [4th  ed.  1842  ;  E.  tr.  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1848]  ;  John,  1827  [7th  ed.  1857  ;  E.  tr.  by  C.  P.  Krauth,  Phila. 
1859]  ;  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  1833  [3d  ed.  1844  ;  E.  tr.  T.  &  T.  Clark, 
1860,  new  ed.  1869]  ;  Hebrews,  1836  [3d  ed.  1850  ;  E.  tr.  Edinb.  1852]  ; 
all  frequently  reprinted.  Psalms,  1843  [E.  tr.  by  J.  I.  Mombert,  1859]. 
Lit.  Anzeiger,  1830-1849  ;   Vermischte  Schri/ten,  1839,  2  vols.     Cf.  §  589. 

H.  A.  C.  Hlivernick,  at  Geneva  and  Konigsberg  (f  1846),  see  §  20.  Com- 
mentary on  Ezekiel,  1843  ;  Daniel,  1838  ;  Tkeol.  des  A.  T.,  1848.  A.  Hahn, 
at  Leipzig  and  Breslau  (f  1863),  Fiir  und  wider  die  gangbaren  hermeneutischen 
Principien,  in  the  Studien,  1830,  II.  A.  L.  C.  Heydenreich,  at  Herborn 
(t  1858),  on  1  Cor.,  1825  ;  Pastoral  Epp.,  1827.  J.  C.  W.  Augusti  (§  579), 
in  his  latest  writings  :  Dogm.  Einl.  in  die  h.  S.,  1832.  G.  A.  Harless,  at 
Erlangen,  Leipzig,  Dresden,  Munich,  on  Ephesians,  1833.  W.  Bohmer,  at 
Breslau,  on  Colossians,  1835.  C.  F.  Bahr,  at  Carlsruhe,  on  Colossians,  1833  ; 
Symbolik  des  mos.  Cultus,  1837,  2  vols.  C.  W.  Wiedenfeld,  De  homine  S.  S. 
interprete,  1835.  Berlin  Repertorium  der  tlieol.  Literatur,  edited  by  H.  Renter 
(formerly  by  Rheinwald)  since  1833  ;  without  definite  party  tendency,  and 
with  the  cooperation  of  the  pupils  of  Neander. 

Of  specifically  Lutheran,  anti-unionistic  tendency  :  ZeitscTirift  fUr  hither. 
Theologie,  by  H.  E.  F.  Giiricke,  at  Halle  (see  §  20),  and  A.  G.  Rudelbach, 
at  Gluckau  (f  1862),  containing,  1840  ff.,  essays  by  the  latter  on  Inspiration. 
F.  Delitzsch,  at  Rostock,  Erlangen,  Leipzig,  on  Genesis,  1852,  and  freq. ;  Can- 
ticles, 1851  ;  Habakkuk,  1843;  Psalms,  1859  ;  Geschichte  der  prophet.  Theol. 
seit  Crusius,  1845.  C.  P.  Caspari,  now  at  Christiania,  on  Isaiah,  Micah,  Oba- 
diah.  J.  H.  Kurtz,  at  Mitau  and  Dorpat,  on  Genesis  ;  a  history  of  Israel ; 
Symbolik  des  mos.  Cultus,  etc.  C.  F.  Keil,  at  Dorpat  (cf.  §  20),  on  Chronicles, 
1833  ;  Kings,  1846  ;  Joshua,  1847.  The  same,  in  comiection  with  Delitzsch, 
a  commentary,  nearly  complete,  on  the  whole  O.  T.,  1861  ff.  [E.  tr.  of  Keil 
and  Delitzsch  on  the  O.  T.,  complete  in  27  vols.,  T.  &  T.  Clark].  W.  Neu- 
mann, on  Jeremiah,  1856.  T.  Kliefoth,  at  Schwerin,  on  Ezekiel,  1864  ;  Daniel, 
1869.  In  N.  T.  exegesis,  exclusive  of  minor  essaj's  :  F.  A.  Philippi,  at  Ros- 
tock, on  Romans  [E.  tr.  from  3d  ed.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1879,  2  vols.].  C.  E. 
Luthardt,  at  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  on  John  [E.  tr.  from  2d  ed.  by  Gregory, 
T.  &  T.  Clark,  1879,  3  vols.].  Delitzsch,  on  Hebrews  [E.  tr.  Edinb.  1868, 
2  vols.],  T.  Schott,  at  Erlangen,  on  Romans,  Peter,  and  Jude,  1861,  1863. 

Among  Reformed  theologians  :  W.  Steiger,  at  Geneva  (f  1836),  on  1  Pe- 
ter, 1832  ;  Colossians,  1835.  J.  H.  A.  Ebrard,  at  Zurich,  Erlangen,  Speyer, 
on  Hebrews,  1851  ;  Dogmatik,  1852  ;  on  the  Apocalypse,  1853. 

689.  The  deepest  wounds  which  the  grammatico-historical 
criticism  had  inflicted  upon  the  system  were  with  respect  to 
the  Old  Testament  and  its  relations  to  the  New.  While  the 
Gospel,  especially  as  set  forth  by  Paul  and  John,  easily  pro- 
tected itself  against  rationalistic  mutilation,  the  apostolic 
church  doctrine  of  this  relation,  in  whatever  way  it  might  be 


612  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

conceived,  seemed  no  longer  reconcilable  with  the  results  of 
historical  study.  Here,  accordingly,  was  the  field  in  which 
a  Avliolly  new  apologetics  must  be  attempted,  and  in  which, 
with  the  same  purpose  of  reconciling  faith  and  science,  the 
defenders  of  orthodox  principles  went  different  ways  at  first. 
Some  held  fast  to  the  traditional  idea  of  a  special  miraculous 
illumination  of  the  prophetic  vision  respecting  the  things  of 
the  future,  maintaining  the  Lutheran  dogma  in  its  strictness 
with  the  arts  of  an  adroit  but  precarious  exegesis.  Others, 
leaning  more  or  less  toward  Calvinistic  ideas,  had  recourse  to 
a  less  strict  conception  of  inspiration  and  prophecy.  Still 
others  plunged  into  extravagant  typological  discussions,  from 
wliicli  came  finally  the  theory  of  the  deeper  sense  of  Scripture, 
heralded  as  the  richest  discovery  of  modern  hermeneutics,  but 
in  reality  a  reminiscence  of  the  oldest  and  most  childish. 

Hengstenberg,  Christologie  des  A.  T.  und  Commentar  iiher  die  mess.  Weis- 
sagungen  (1829)  1853,  3  vols.  [E.  tr.  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1854-58].  Hiivernick, 
Einl.  ins  A.  T.,  I.  142.  A.  E.  Weiss,  Examen  des  citations  de  I' A.  T.,  Str. 
1841. 

Tholuck,  Das  A.  T.  im  Neuen,  App.  to  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  1836  ; 
Ueher  Inspiration,  in  the  Berlin  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  1850.  Roos,  Wissen- 
schaftl.  und  kirchl.  Standpunkt  fur  die  Erkldrung  der  mess.  Psalmen,  in  the 
Wurtemb.  Studien,  1848,  II. 

Cf.  on  the  matter  itself  and  the  divergence  of  the  two  tendencies  :  Um- 
breit,  in  the  Studien,  1828,  II.,  1830,  I.  ;  Steudel,  in  the  Tub.  Zeitschr.,  1830, 
II.  ;  Fritzsche,  in  the  Prediger journal,  Pt.  76  ;  Augusti,  Dogm.  Einl.,  p. 
218  ff.  ;  Bleek,  in  the  Studien,  1835,  II.,  and  on  Heb.  i.  5  ff .  ;  J.  H.  Dangler, 
Examen  des  citations  messianiques,  Str.  1851. 

J.  A.  Kanne,  at  Erlangen  (f  1824),  Christus  im  A.  T.,  1818,  2  vols,  (a 
monument  of  IBabylonian  confusion  of  tongues);  F.  G.  Lisco,  Das  Ceremo- 
nialgesetz  des  A.  T.  und  seine  ErfUllung  im  Neuen,  1842  ;  J.  H.  Kurtz,  Das 
mos.  Offer,  1842.  In  homiletic  form  especially  G.  Menken,  F.  W.  and  G. 
D.  Krummacher,  and  others.  Cf.  E.  Reuss,  Die  neueste  Typologie,  in  the 
Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1844,  I.  145. 

H.  Olshausen,  at  Konigsberg  and  Erlangen  (f  1839),  Ein  Wort  fiber  tiefem 
Schriftsinn,  1824  ;  Die  bibl.  Schriftauslegung,  1825  ;  Biblischer  Commentar  iiber 
das  N.  T.,  1830  ff.,  Pts.  I.-IV.,  since  continued  by  others  [translated  for 
Clark's  For.  Theol.  Library,  1847-1849,  4  vols.,  and  revised  by  Prof.  A.  C. 
Kendrick,  N.  Y.  1856-1858,  6  vols.]  ;  Opuscula,  1834.  R.  Stier,  pastor  in 
Westphalia,  afterward  in  Saxony  (f  1862),  Andeutungen  filr  glduhiges  Schrift- 
verstdndniss,  1824  ff.,  4  vols.,  the  separate  volumes  under  different  titles  ;  Sie- 
benzig  Psalmen,  1834  ;  Die  Stufen  und  das  Ziel  der  Bibelauslegung  (in  Tholuck's 
Anzeiger,  1836,  No.  57);  more  recently  several  works  for  the  practical  ex- 
position of  the  N.  T.  [See  his  Leben,  by  his  sons,  Wittenb.  1868,  2d  ed. 
1871.]  —  In  both  of  them  decided  polemic  against  Hengstenberg  ;  recogni- 
tion of  the  results  of  historical  exegesis  ;  vir6voia.  Against  them  Steudel,  in 
Bengel's  Archiv,  VII.  403,  VIII.  483.  Hengstenberg,  E.  Kirchenzeitung, 
March,  1832,  and  against  him  Olshausen  in  the  April  number. 

A  peculiar  symptom  of  this  last  phase  of  interpretation,  however  incon- 
sistent with  its  principle,  is  the  inclination  to  explain  the  miracles  (an 
explanation  rather  mystical  than  natural)  by  referring  them  either  to  mag- 
netic powers,  or  to  accelerated  natural  processes,  or  to  unusual  states  of 


THE  RESTORATION  — HISTORICAL  CRITICISM.  613 

soul.     Cf.  beside   Olshausen  on  the  Gospels,  and  others,  J.  P.  Lange,  at 
Zurich  and  Bonn,  Leben  Jesu,  1844  if.,  5  vols.     [E,  tr.  Ediub.  1864,  6  vols.] 

590.  Over  against  all  these  attempts  to  solve  the  great 
problem  of  the  relation  of  the  two  revelations,  which  either  did 
violence  to  the  letter  and  to  the  understanding,  or  appeared 
dangerous  from  their  very  consistency,  another  has  more  re- 
cently been  placed,  which  perhaps  should  be  recognized  by 
both  speculative  philosophy  and  believing  theology  as  their 
legitimate  child.  Prophecy  and  fulfillment  are  no  longer  to  be 
brought  into  harmony  by  precarious  and  desperate  verbal  jug- 
glery, but  from  the  higher  standpoint  of  a  broad  outlook  over 
the  whole  of  history.  The  history  of  mankind  is  the  revelation 
of  Christ  in  the  world  ;  evei-y  separate  event,  even  without  the 
sphere  of  the  people  of  God,  points  to  him,  either  as  a  type  of 
his  person  and  life,  or  as  a  progressive  establishment  of  com- 
munion between  God  and  man,  or  as  a  continued  hint  of  the 
future  goal  of  this  progress.  The  New  Testament  in  its 
historical  form  is  only  the  normative  centre  and  point  of  rest 
in  the  great  unfolding  of  the  prophecies  which  preceded  it  and 
are  given  in  it.  Upon  this  theory,  it  is  true,  in  order  to  orient 
theology  by  history,  history  is  first  made  theology,  and  in  the 
carrying  out  of  the  rich  thought  there  is  still  very  much  patch- 
work to  be  found,  but  it  is  certainly  a  step  forward,  and 
therefore  itself  a  prophecy  which  cannot  fail  of  fulfillment. 

The  idea  itself  is  in  germ  older.  It  is  hinted  at  on  the  one  side  by  Crusius 
(§  570)  and  on  the  other  by  the  Hegelian  philosophy  (Billroth,  §  591),  not  to 
speak  of  other  accordances  ;  see  especially  Delitzsch,  Gesch.  der  prophet. 
Theologie  (§  588),  p.  177  fP. 

Still  nearer,  J.  T.  Beck,  at  Basle  and  Tiibingen,  Ueher  messianische  Weis- 
sagung  als  geschlchtl.  Problem  und  pneumatische  Schriftauslegung,  in  the  Tub. 
Zeitschr.,  1831,  III.  ;  Versuch  einer  pneumatlsch-hermeneut.  Entwicklung  von 
Rom.  ix.,  1833  ;  Propddeutische  Entwicklung  der  christl.  Lehrwissenschaft,  1838, 
at  the  beginning. 

Principal  work  :  J.  C.  C.  Hofmann,  at  Rostock  and  Erlangen,  Weissagung 
und  Erfilllung  im  A.u.  N.  T.,  1841  f.,  2  vols.;  Der  Schriftbeweis,  1852  ;  Die 
h.  Schrift  N.  T.  zusammenhangend  untersucht,  1862  ff.  [down  to  1878,  all 
the  Epistles,  except  those  of  John,  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  14  vols.].  Pro- 
fessing the  same  principles,  M.  Baumgarten,  at  Kiel  and  Rostock,  Theol. 
Commentar  zum  A.  T.,  1843,  2  vols.  (Pentateuch)  ;  in  later  essays  also 
Delitzsch.     Also  C.  A.  Auberlen,  Dan.  u.  Apoc,  1854. 

Cf.  Hengstenberg,  E.  Kirchenzeitung,  June,  1843  ;  E.  Reuss,  in  the  Halle 
Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1847,  I.  193.  —  Critical  review  of  all  modern  theories  of 
the  relation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  and  of  prophecy  and  quotation, 
by  A.  Kayser,  in  the  Strassb.  .Reyue,  VII.,  VIII.  M.  Hartmann,  Les  propheties 
messianiques  et  leurs  interpretes  modernes,  Str.  1857.  A.  Hirschgartner,  Ex- 
amen  des  citations,  etc.,  Geneva,  1858. 

If  the  former  rationalistic  exposition  was  characterized  by  its  shallow 
insipidity,  the  present  constructive  exegesis,  on  the  other  hand,  oftentimes 
falls  into  the  habit  and  tone  of  an  unhealthy  exuberance  and  an  affected  pro- 
fundity which  are  opposed,  no  less  than  the  former,  to  historical  truth,  to 


614  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

the  spirit  of  the  Bible,  and  to  sound  taste.  Cf.  Hupfeld,  Die  heutige  theoso- 
phische  odcr  mythologlsche  Theologie  u.  Schrifterkldrung,  in  the  Berlin  Zeitschr. 
fiir  chrisil.  Wissenschaft,  Aug.  1861.     Diestel,  p.  698  ft". 

Standing  alone  and  likely  to  remain  so,  G.  M.  Redslob,  at  Hamburg 
(^Apocali/psis,  Blatter  fiir  pneu7n.  Christenthum  und  myst.  Schrifterkldrung,  L. 
1859  ;  Die  Evv.  als  geheime  kanonische  Gesetzgebung  in  Form  von  Denkw.  aus 
dem  Leben  Jesu,  1869),  wlio  sets  aside  the  traditional  history  and  puts  in  its 
place  one  not  miraculous  certainly,  but  all  the  more  mysterious. 

591.  Wlietlier  this  liistorico-pbilosophical  theory  is  the  final 
word  of  a  strict  and  positive  theology,  or  the  first  of  a  more 
mild  and  conciliatory  one,  must  soon  be  decided.  It  is  certainly 
better  fitted  to  set  the  Church  at  rest  than  that  which  the 
speculative  philosophy  of  our  day  has  offered,  in  its  own  name, 
partly  as  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  faith  of  the  Bible, 
partly  as  a  substitute  for  it.  At  first,  when  it  began  to  occupy 
itself  with  the  doctrinal  writings  of  the  Apostles,  it  clearly 
recognized  the  distinction  between  its  own  theology  and  the 
religious  idea,  as  it  was  concerned  in  the  founding  of  the  Church, 
yet  declared  openly  that  it  proposed  to  itself  the  task  of  pointing 
out  the  inner  connection  between  the  two,  and  of  changing 
and  elevating  the  form  of  thought  of  the  Apostles,  considered 
as  something  subjective,  of  which  they  themselves  were  not  yet 
fully  conscious,  into  the  form  of  the  idea.  But  afterward,  when 
it  took  up  the  gospel  history  with  the  same  design,  it  melted 
away  under  its  hands,  a  splendid  mirage  over  a  vast  desert, 
and  as  it  were  in  childish  anger  over  a  broken  plaything  and 
over  the  vehement  rebuke  called  out,  it  became  disgusted  with 
its  occupation,  and  rejoiced  thereafter  only  in  the  work  of 
destruction. 

The  Hegelian  theory  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  briefly  developed 
by  W.  Vatke,  at  Berlin,  in  a  review  in  the  Berl.  Jahrb.,  Nov.  1830  ;  cf.  his 
Religion  des  A.  T.,  1835;  by  G.  C.  R.  Matthfei,  at  Gcittingen  (f  1872),  Neue 
Auslegung  der  Bihel,  1831,  and  Ev.  Joh.,  1837  (earlier,  Religionsglaube  der 
Apost.,  1826,  2  vols.),  but  less  concisely  ;  more  clearly  by  G.  Billroth,  at 
Leipzig  (f  1835),  in  the  preface  to  his  commentary  on  Corinthians,  1833. 
Here  belong  also  Bruno  Bauer's  (at  Berlin)  earlier  writings  :  Religion  des 
A.  T.,  1838  ;  Zeitschr.  fiir  speculative  Theologie,  1836 f.;  L.  Usteri's  Entioick- 
lung  des  paulin.  Lehrhegriffs  (§  587),  from  the  fourth  edition  on  ;  C.  S.  Mat- 
thies,  at  Greifswald  (f  1856),  commentaries  on  Gal.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  1833  f.  ; 
Propddeutik  der  neutest.  Theol.,  1836,  p.  176  ff.  Yet  in  these  exegetical 
works  the  application  of  the  principle  is  everywhere  sober,  little  destructive, 
and  often  only  to  be  read  between  the  lines. 

It  may  serve  for  the  consolation  of  the  uninitiated  to  say  that  for  the 
direct,  devout  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  by  which  the  religious  life  is 
nourished,  and  for  which  the  Apostles  originally  Avrote,  such  theological 
exposition  is  in  no  way  necessary.  For  the  rest,  just  as  biblical  and  symbol- 
ical expressions  could  be  made  to  serve  in  the  mass  as  a  dress  for  the  ideas 
of  this  philosophy,  so,  conversely,  many  of  these  ideas  passed  over  into  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  orthodoxy;  and  not  orthodoxy  but  rationalism  of  the  old 
stamp  was  its  most  violent  opponent. 


HEGEL.  615 

The  second  phase  was  opened  by  D.  F.  Strauss,  then  at  Tubingen,  Leben 
Jesu,  1835  f.,  2  vols.,  and  freq.  (see  especially  the  concluding  treatise) 
[E.  tr.  by  George  Eliot,  Lond.  1846,  3  vols.,  N.  Y.  1850],  his  Glaubenslehre, 
1840,  and  the  critical  works  of  Bruno  Bauer  on  the  Gospels,  1840  ff.,4  vols.; 
Theol.  Erklanmg  der  Em.,  1852  ;  Kritih  der  paulin.  Brief e,  1852.  The  myth- 
ical treatment  of  the  gospel  history  (upon  which  the  school  itself  delivered 
an  opinion,  see  J.  Schaller,  in  Bauer's  Zeitsckr.,  III.)  was  in  reality  what 
gave  to  the  old  rationalistic  treatment  its  death-blow,  which  it  felt  so  heavily 
that  it  never  spoke  again.  Explanations  of  miracles,  which  seem  to  be  a  neces- 
sity of  the  human  reason,  were  henceforth  a  substitute  for  orthodox  exegesis 
(§  589).  Apologetics  soon  felt,  in  contest  with  this  criticism  (Steudel, 
Klaiber,  W.  Hoffmann,  Osiander,  —  Tholuck,  Harless,  Sack,  Ebrard,  Nean- 
der,  J.  Muller,  —  Ullman,  Kern,  Theile,  W.  Grimm,  —  Hug,  Mack,  Kuhn, 
and  many  others),  or  at  least  caused  others  to  feel,  the  necessity  of  a  trans- 
formation of  itself  and  together  therewith  of  theological  and  exegetical  sci- 
ence in  general.  Strauss,  Streitschriften  fur  Vertlieidlgung  des  Lebens  Jesu  und 
zur  Charakteristik  der  gegenwdrtigen  Theologie,  1833,  3  Pts. 

692.  The  reconstructive  theology  has  won  notable  and  en- 
durmg  victories  in  the  field  of  doctrine  and  church  affairs.  It 
has  also  commended  to  biblical  research  a  becoming  modesty 
and  aided  it  to  come  to  self-consciousness.  Yet  it  would  seem 
as  if,  in  this  time  of  ferment  and  transformation,  the  systems, 
weakened  by  their  very  number,  were  destined  to  attain  au- 
thority the  less  as  they  claim  it  the  more  exclusively.  For 
while  the  theorists  of  thought  and  faith  cannot  unite  their 
convictions  and  their  exegesis  closely  enough,  other  expositors 
strive  to  dispossess  themselves  of  all  dogmatic  interest  and  to 
treat  the  content  of  Scripture  simply  as  something  histori- 
cally given,  as  to  whose  theological  value  no  opinion  from 
them,  as  purely  historical  investigators,  is  either  fitting  or 
should  be  demanded.  Several  of  them  have  undertaken  the 
unpleasant  but  thankworthy  task  of  subjecting  to  a  new  test, 
upon  more  rational  principles  than  had  before  been  followed, 
the  whole  philological  basis  of  exegesis,  and  of  bringing  sacred 
philology  up  to  the  level  to  which  profane  had  attained.  It  is 
a  sign  of  the  times  that  controversy  can  be  carried  on  now  over 
rules  of  syntax  with  equal  vehemence  and  in  relation  to  the 
same  passages  over  which  our  fathers  were  concerned  for  the 
salvation  of  their  souls. 

For  the  purely  philological  works  of  this  tendencj'  and  school  (mostly  by 
Saxon  scholars  and  all  in  either  mental  or  traditional  connection  with  Er- 
nesti)  on  the  N.  T.  see  above,  §  47.  The  following  are  exegetical  :  G.  B. 
Winer,  at  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  on  Galatians,  1821  and  freq.  ;  his  Exeget. 
Studien,  1827,  with  contributions  from  several.  F.  A.  Bornemann,  at  Meissen 
(t  1850),  on  Luke,  1830.  C.  F.  A.  Fritzsche,  at  Rostock  and  Giessen  (f  1847), 
on  Matth.,  Mark,  1826,  2  vols.,  Romans,  1836  ff.,  3  vols.,  2  Cor.  1825  ;  Opusc. 
acad.,  with  contributions  by  C.  F.  Fritzsche,  the  father,  at  Halle  (f  1851), 
and  O.  F.  Fritszche,  the  brother,  at  Zurich,  1838.  C.  G.  W.  Theile,  at  Leip- 
zig (f  1854),  on  James,  1833.  (The  latter  originally  published  as  Pt.  XVIIL 
of  a  colossal  commentary  on  the  N.  T.  of  which  a  preliminary  notice  was  is- 


616  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

sued  in  1829,  and  wliich  was  designed  to  render  all  previous  exegetical  lit- 
erature unnecessary.) 

H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  at  Hoya,  afterward  at  Hannover  (f  1873),  Das  N.  T. 
mit  Uehers.  und  Commentar,  Gott.  1832  f.  In  the  later  volumes,  in  the  suc- 
ceeding editions  (extending,  in  part,  to  the  fifth  [to  the  sixth  of  Matthew,  by 
himself,  of  Mark  and  Luke  by  B.  Weiss]),  and  particularly  in  the  continua- 
tions by  other  hands,  written  in  a  more  theological  and  positive  spirit.  [E. 
tr.  of  the  whole  Commentary,  except  Revelation,  Edinb.  1873-1882,  20  vols. 
A  biographical  sketch,  by  his  son,  will  be  found  prefixed  to  the  first  volume 
on  Matthew.] 

The  controversial  writings  of  C.  E.  A.  Fritzsche  and  others  against  Tho- 
Inek's  commentaries  (Romans,  1831  ;  Hebrews,  1840)  ;  against  De  Wette, 
Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung.,  1837,  II.  377,  are  characteristic,  elevating  grammar  and 
syntax  to  the  throne  of  all  science,  indifferent  to  everything  else,  and  in  the 
well-known  tone  of  "  humanistic  "  urbanity. 

Of  essentially  philological  spirit  is  also  the  Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.  of  C.  G. 
Wilke,  at  Dresden  (f  1856),  1843,  2  vols.  ;  RhetoriJc  des  N.  T.,  1843  ;  the 
works  seek  their  peculiarity  not  in  a  scholastic  principle,  but  in  their 
(minutely  accurate)  schematic  method  and  in  abstract  formulas  ;  introdu- 
cing besides  as  a  doctrinal  guide  a  new  kind  of  analogia  Jidei,  "  Pauline 
Messianism."     The  author  afterward  became  a  Catholic. 

That  work  just  as  efl'ective  and  even  more  so  has  been  carried  on  at  the 
same  time  in  the  O.  T.,  and  with  great  results,  needs  no  reminder  save  the 
fame  of  Gesenius  and  Ewald  and  their  pupils.  But  to  give  details  of  it  is 
out  of  place  in  a  history  of  the  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures.  In  so  far 
as  the  works  of  the  writers  just  mentioned,  as  well  as  those  of  Hitzig, 
Bertheau,  Fuch,  Knobel,  Thenius,  J.  Olshausen,  Dillmann,  and  others,  es- 
pecially in  the  (now  completed)  Exeget.  Handb.  des  A.  T.,  are  occupied 
essentially  with  the  exaltation  of  historical  facts  and  the  establishment  of 
historical  views,  they  belong  in  the  category  of  the  exegetes  of  the  following 
section. 

593.  Many  others,  on  tlie  contrary,  who  felt  neither  call  nor 
desire  to  maintain  a  purely  external  relation  to  the  text,  made 
its  essential  contents  the  subject  of  their  exegetical  studies, 
and  endeavored,  making  freedom  from  prejudice  the  first  her- 
meneutical  rule,  to  keep  themselves  equally  removed  from 
rationalistic  mutilation  of  dogma  and  ecclesiastical  zeal  there- 
for. The  latter  endeavor  was  to  most  probably  not  a  difiicult 
one,  and  with  some  might  go  almost  to  the  length  of  a  studied 
indifference ;  but  that  they  succeeded  in  tlie  first  better  than 
their  predecessors  at  the  beginning  of  the  century  is  certainly 
shown  by  the  fact  that  a  change  has  come  about  in  the  relation 
of  the  philosophic  spirit  of  the  age  to  the  Bible.  The  doctrinal 
writings  of  these  latter  are  worthy  monuments  of  the  former 
period,  protected  by  the  historic  sense  from  the  perversions 
of  the  current  theological  taste  ;  but  the  essential  coldness  of 
the  enlightened  of  this  age  is  almost  a  more  hazardous  sign  for 
the  future  of  the  dogmatic  use  of  Scripture  than  was  the  vul- 
gar heat  of  the  enlighteners  in  the  preceding. 

The  number  of  those  to  be  mentioned  here  (cf.  the  preceding  and  the  fol- 
lowing sections)  seemed  at  the  first  likely  to  become  considerable  ;  for  the 
present,  however,  it  is  at  a  standstill,  though  the  work  is  not  yet  finished.    It 


HISTORICAL  CRITICISM.  617 

is  noteworthy  that  thus  far  it  is  the  (Pauline)  Epistles  which  have  been  chosen 
by  preference  for  treatment  from  this  standpoint,  which  is  precisely  the  field 
in  which  the  dogmatizing  exegetes  had  already  done  effective  work  (§  587 
&.).  Doubtless  also  the  complete  and  clear  theology  of  Paul  particularly 
invited  to  objective  treatment.  Nor  have  the  Johannean  writings  been  neg- 
lected by  this  school.  On  the  other  hand,  all  the  world,  even  the  youth,  feels 
the  need  of  a  commentary  such  as  there  should  be  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

L.  I.  Riickert,  at  Zittau  and  Jena  (f  1871),  on  Rom.,  Cor.,  Gal.,  Eph., 
1831  ff.  ;  Magazin  fur  Exegese,  1838  ;  Christl.  Philosophie,  1825,  2  vols. 
Dogmatic  works,  both  more  general  (Theologie,  1851)  and  more  special  (on 
the  Supper,  the  Church).  J.  G.  Reiche,  at  Gottingen  (f  1863),  on  Rom.,  1833. 
E.  Kollner,  at  Gottingen  and  Giessen,  on  the  same  Ep.,  1834.  F.  C.  Meier, 
at  Giessen  (f  1841),  on  Eph.,  1834.  F.  Bleek,  at  Bonn,  on  Hebrews,  1828, 
Gospels,  1862,  Col.  and  Eph.,  1865.  F.  H.  Kern,  at  Tiibingen  (f  1842),  on 
James,  1838,  and  many  others.  —  D.  v.  Colin,  at  Breslau  (f  1833),  Bibl. 
TkeoL,  1836,  2  vols.  H.  Hupfeld,  at  Halle  (f  1866),  on  the  Psalms,  1855  ff. 
C.  H.  Graf,  at  Meissen  (f  1869),  on  Jeremiah,  1862,  and  those  mentioned  in 
the  last  note  under  the  preceding  section.  W.  Grimm,  at  Jena,  and  O.  F. 
Fritzsche,  at  Ziirich,  on  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha,  1851  ff.  H.  Ewald,  on  Paul, 
1857  ;  Johannean  writings,  1861,  2  vols.  ;  Hebr.,  James,  1870  ;  Sieben  Send- 
schreiben  (the  remaining  ones,  regarded  as  spurious),  1871. 

For  criticism  of  this  tendency  see  Tholuck's  Liter.  Anzeiger,  1833,  No.  22 
f.  ;  Billroth  and  Matthies  (§  691),  in  the  prefaces  to  Corinthians  and  Ephe- 
sians. 

C.  B.  Hundeshagen,  Das  Princip  der  freien  Schriftforschung  im  Verhdltnisse 
zur  Kirclie  und  zu  den  Symbolen,  Darmst.  1852. 

594.  However  that  may  be,  this  purely  historical  investiga- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  is  certainly  still  a  Protestant  science. 
And  if  it  has  become  the  highest  point  of  view  of  tlie  philosophi- 
cal theology  to  recognize  the  revelations  of  God  to  mankind 
in  their  large  connection  and  in  their  development,  it  is  a 
further  task  of  the  historical  theology,  which  it  cannot  refuse, 
to  comprehend  the  human  side  of  this  development,  the  advan- 
cing perception  in  the  bearers  of  revelation,  no  longer  merely 
in  its  isolated  phenomena,  but  as  a  whole,  at  once  natural 
and  guided  by  Providence.  Toward  both  these  ends  thus 
far  only  attempts  have  been  made,  and  the  first  steps  taken, 
still  stumbling  and  uncertain  ;  it  will  be  a  long  time  yet  be- 
fore the  two  parallel  pathways  are  built  and  can  be  combined 
into  one  highway  of  theology.  Until  then  we  should  rejoice 
at  every  advance,  discreetly  use  and  pardon  even  the  mis- 
takes, and  go  on,  each  in  the  path  which  lies  before  him ;  it  has 
been  wisely  arranged  that  the  direction  shall  always  turn  finally 
toward  the  goal. 

Since  the  revolution  (§  571  ff.)  many  theories  have  been  put  forth  respect- 
ing Biblical  Theology,  its  conception,  scope,  method,  and  value,  in  all  the 
theological  encyclopedias,  in  the  introductions  to  all  important  works,  and  in 
special  writings  :  J.  P.  Gabler,  De  justo  discrimine  th.  bibl.  et  dogm.,  1787  ; 
C.  C.  E.  Schmid,  De  th.  bibl,  1788  ;  C.  W.  Stein,  in  the  Analekten,  1816,  I.; 
A.  G.  F.  Schirmer,  Die  bibl.  Dogmatik  in  ihrem  Verhalten  zum  Ganzen  der 
Theologie  ;  Gesenius,  Art.  Bibl,  Dogmatik,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encykl.,  I. 
10  ;  Fleck,  in  the  Prediger journal,  Vol.  LXXXVI. ;  Schmid,  in  the  Tub. 


618  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

Zeitschr.,  1838,  IV.  ;  Schenkel,  in  the  Studien,  1852,  I.  —  Most  of  the  prac- 
tical attempts  thus  far,  however,  bear  strongly  the  impress  of  the  schools, 
and  thei-efore  have  been  classified  in  the  appropriate  sections  above. 

A.  Immer,  Hermeyieutik  des  N.  T.,  Wittb.  1873. 

The  Hegelian  philosophy,  notwithstanding  its  subjectivity,  gave  a  mighty 
impulse  to  the  historical  way  of  looking  at  things,  and  in  estimating  its  in- 
fluence one  must  not  allow  himself  to  be  guided  altogether  by  the  imme- 
diate results  of  its  application  (§591).  It  has  not  always  made  claim  to 
furnish  the  material  of  history  also,  as  it  were  ;  where  it  has  given  leading 
ideas  for  the  finding  of  the  spirit  lying  within  history,  certainly  not  all  the 
discoveries  Jiiade  have  been  precarious  or  illusory  (§  344)  ;  and  it  will  have 
an  influence  even  where  no  direct  mental  contact  with  it  as  a  system  has 
taken  place,  as  has  been  the  case  with  the  Kantian  pliilosophy  also.  Even 
the  highest  mountams  of  error  are  finally  leveled,  but  not  a  grain  of  truth 
is  lost. 

We  must  also  mention  here  the  growing  literature  on  the  life  of  Jesus 
(cf.  §  581).  It  certainly  can  as  yet  make  no  claim  to  the  credit  of  having 
solved  the  problem  ;  perhaps,  indeed,  the  best  works  show  most  clearly  of 
all  that  it  is  insoluble  ;  yet  the  literature  shows  in  general  that  the  science 
understands  the  demands  which  are  properly  put  upon  it,  and  no  longer 
seeks  to  be  rid  of  them  so  easily  as  formerly. 

595.  The  German  Catholics  have  been  protected,  by  their 
more  circumscribed  position,  from  many  of  the  vagaries  of  the 
Protestant  exegesis.  But  these  limitations  have  not  prevented 
them  from  taking  part  in  the  scientific  movement  of  the  cen- 
tury. True,  the  still  infallible  church  holds  them  under  her  jeal- 
ous guardianship,  yet  she  prevents  no  one  from  appropriating 
the  attainments  and  methods  of  the  advanced  age,  and  bringing 
honor  to  herself  by  his  knowledge  and  the  application  of  it. 
The  fluctuations  of  the  schools  in  the  field  of  Biblical  Theology 
are  naturally  much  less  prominent,  and  in  particular  are  not  so 
much  magnified  by  controversy  as  among  us ;  yet  science  has 
not  been  wholly  untouched  by  the  spirit  of  the  age  even  here. 
Outside  of  Germany,  however,  there  is  properly  nothing  to  be 
said  of  Catholic  Biblical  Theology.  Where  the  Romish  clergy 
has  no  opposing  Church  set  over  against  it,  it  seems  to  be  sunk 
in  the  mental  indolence  of  eternal  peace ;  but  elsewhere,  Avliere 
conflict  calls  it  out,  it  at  least  does  not  draw  its  strength  from 
learned  investigations. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  last  century  the  spirit  of  liberalism  and  independ- 
ence aroused  or  cherished  by  Joseph  II.  manifested  itself  also  in  the  her- 
meneutical  and  exegetical  labors  of  many  Catholics,  partly  by  neglect  of  the 
theological  and  specifically  confessional  hues  of  argument,  and  adoption  of 
the  standpoint  of  Ernesti,  partly  even  in  quiet  participation  in  the  illuminative 
(rationalistic)  tendencies  of  the  time.  The  relation  between  Protestant  and 
Catholic  theologians  during  this  period,  and  even  somewhat  later,  was  a 
friendly  one  ;  books  were  dedicated  back  and  forth,  official  congratulations 
were  written  by  faculties  on  the  occasion  of  festivals  in  the  other  party, 
Catholic  essays  might  seek  publication  in  Protestant  journals,  and  Catholic 
seminary  students  heard  exegesis  under  Protestant  professors  by  the  author- 
ity of  a  Catholic  government  (Reichlin-Meldegg's  Paulus,  I.  374). 

S.  Seemiller,  at  Ingolstadt  (f  1798),  Institt.  ad  interpr.  S.  S.,  1779.    J.  J. 


HISTORICAL  CRITICISM- CATHOLICS.  619 

Monsperger,  at  Vienna,  Instit.  herm.  V.  T.,  1781.  C.  Fischer,  at  Prague, 
(t  1791),  Instit.  herm.  in  N.  T.,  1788  ;  cf.  §  488.  A.  Arigler,  at  Vienna, 
Hermeneutica  biblica  generalis,  1813.  F.  G.  Mayer,  at  Linz,  Listit.  interpretis 
s.,  1789,  and  pliilological  treatment  of  Matthew,  John,  and  some  Epistles. 

J.  Jahn  (§  21),  Encheiridion  Jiermeneuticce  generalis,  1812,  and  freq.  ;  exe- 
getical  works  on  the  O.  T.,  for  which  he  was  ecclesiastically  tried  and  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  that  time  mildly  censured.  Nachtrdge  to  his 
theological  works,  1821.  Against  him  and  his  school  :  De  necessitate  incau- 
tos  prceveniendi  adv.  artem  nonnuUorum  professorum  hermeneutices  qui  sub  re- 
spectu  interpr.  novarum  S.  S.  naturalismum  evulgare  ac  revelationis  ideam  delere 
conantur,  Rome,  1818.  (J.  Tumpacher),  Vindicice  J.  Jahn,  L.  1822  ;  Werner, 
p.  273. 

J.  B.  de  Rossi,  at  Parma  (f  1809),  celebrated  as  a  Hebraist,  O.  T.  critic, 
and  authority  in  Jewish  literature  :  Sinopsi  delta  Ermeneutica  sacra,  1819 
(^Meinorie  storiche  sul  Dr.  de  Rossi,  Parma,  1809). 

The  one  who  went  farthest  over  into  the  rationalistic  ranks  was  M.  Weck- 
lein,  Liberalior  V.  T.  interpr.,  1806,  who,  after  Wetstein,  made  the  Greek 
and  Roman  classics  the  best  aids  of  exegesis,  not  for  the  language  but  for 
the  religious  ideas  of  the  O.  T.  Against  him  J.  H.  Kistemaker  (see  below), 
De  nova  exegesi,  etc.,  1806. 

Die  h.  Schr.  A.  T.,  edited  (with  translation  and  commentary)  by  D.  v. 
Brentano,  at  Kempten  (f  1797),  continued  by  T.  A.  Dereser,  at  Strassburg, 
Freiburg,  and  Breslau  (f  1817),  1797  &.  Later  editions,  also  N.  T.  (1828, 
4  vols.),  edited  by  J.  M.  A.  Scholz  (§  21),  in  a  stricter  spirit.  B.  M.  Schnap- 
pinger,  at  Freiburg  (f  1832),  Commentar  zum  N.  T.,  1797,  4  vols.  P.  A. 
Gratz,  at  Tiibingen  and  Bonn,  on  Matth.,  1821.  More  for  practical  edifica- 
tion :  C.  Schwarzel,  at  Freiburg  (f  1809),  Uebers.  u.  Auslegung  des  N.  T., 
Ulm,  1802  ff.,  6  vols,  (only  the  Gospels). 

With  more  definite  reference  to  the  Catholic  principle,  analogia  Jidei  and 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  yet  in  the  application  of  it  often  very  discreet,  and 
giving  wider  scope  to  the  philological  basis  of  interpretation  :  Theoria  her- 
meneutices s.,  Dill.  1811.  S.  Hayd,  at  Freiburg,  Introd.  herm.  in  N.  T.,  1777. 
J.  B.  Gerhauser  (f  1825  ;  §  21),  in  the  second  part  of  his  Bibl.  Hermeneutik. 
J.  M.  A.  Lolinis,  at  Giessen,  GrundzUge  der  bibl.  Hermeneutik  und  Kritik, 
1839.  —  For  proof  that  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (§  552),  as  a 
purely  disciplinary  matter,  did  not  greatly  restrict  freedom,  and  for  the  con- 
ception of  interpretation  as  a  "  diplomatist "  working  in  the  interest  of  the 
Church,  see  p.  151.  Cf.  also  Glaire,  §  21.  M.  Arneth,  Die  Unterschiede 
zwischen  der  bios  rationellen  und  der  katholischen  Schriftauslegung,  Linz,  1816. 
J.  H.  Kistemaker,  at  Miinster  (f  1834),  on  some  Psalms,  Canticles  ;  Gos- 
pels, Acts,  Epistles.  A.  Maier  (§  21),  in  many  parts  free,  fresh,  and  inde- 
pendent.    Also  commentaries  on  John,  Romans,  and  Hebrews. 

Strictly  Catholic,  with  decided  emphasis  on  the  confessional  standpoint  in 
the  field  of  Biblical  Theology  :  J.  Alzog,  at  Posen  and  Freiburg,  Explicatio 
catholicorum  systematis  de  interpr.  S.  S.,  Miinster,  1835.  C.  Unterkircher,  at 
Trent,  Hermeneutica  biblica  generalis,  Innsbr.  1834,  p.  256  :  the  Scriptures 
the  norma  dogmatum  only  in  so  far  as  the  magisterium  ecclesicB  entrusted  with 
the  care  of  doctrine  has  so  established  it.  J.  Ranolder,  at  Fiinfkirchen, 
Herm.  bibl.  principia  rationalia,  chr.  et  catholica,  1838.  V.  Reichel,  at  Koni- 
gingriitz,  Introd.  in  herm.  bibl.,  W.  1839.  A.  Schmitter,  Grundlinien  der  bibl. 
Hermeneutik,  Reg.  1844  :  the  Church  and  the  Fathers  stand  above  other 
means  of  interpretation  as  supernatural.  G.  J.  B.  Giintner,  Herm.  biblica 
generalis,  Prague,  1848,  and  freq.  H.  Klee,  at  Bonn  and  Munich  (f  1840), 
ou  John,  Romans,  Hebrews,  1829  ff.  L.  Reinke,  at  Miinster,  and  B.  Welte, 
at  Tubingen,  works  on  the  O.  T.  F.  Windischmann,  on  Galatians,  1843.  M. 
J.  Mack,  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  1835. 

The  journals  which  have  contributed  most  to  the  scholarly  and  theologi- 


620  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

cal  discussion  of  the  Scriptures  are  :  J.  L.  Hug's  (§  21  j  Zeitschr.  fur  die 
GeistUchkeit  des  Erzb.,  Freiburg,  1828-1834.  Neue  Zeitschr.  fur  Theol.  (by 
the  Professors  at  Freiburg),  1839-1848.  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (by  the  Pro- 
fessors at  Tiibingen),  since  1819.  The  first,  especially  in  its  earlier  years, 
laid  little  stress  ui^on  the  specifically  Catholic  element.  On  Hug  in  par- 
ticular see  Maier,  in  the  Freiburg  Zeitschr.,  1846,  I.  ;  Werner,  p.  527. 

In  tlie  Catholic  manuals  of  hermeneutics  of  all  shades  there  is  a  constant 
chapter  De  seiisu  multiplici,  in  which  there  is  either  undertaken  a  brief  re- 
duction of  it  to  allegory,  parable,  religious  symbolism,  and  apostolic  typol- 
ogy, or  at  least  the  patristic  methods  are  explained  in  their  principle,  and 
commended,  perhaps  with  cautions  :  N.  Le  Gros,  Tr.  de  S.  S.  sensu  multi- 
plici, Vind.  1780.  L.  A.  Hassler,  Sendschreiben  des  huchstdhlichen  an  seine 
Briider  den  allegorischen  vnd  moralischen  Bihelsinn,  with  the  motto  :  Solamen 
miseris  socios  habuisse  malorum,  —  in  his  Exeget.  Andeutungen,  1821. 

596.  A  retrospect  of  the  events  in  the  realm  of  Biblical  The- 
ology during  the  last  eighty  years,  whether  one  regard  them 
as  necessary  phases  of  development  or  as  lamentable  errors, 
shows  that  Germany  has  attained  an  unquestioned  supremacy 
over  all  other  countries  in  this  field  of  thought  and  knowl- 
edge. This  supremacy  is  certainly  not  due  to  any  particular 
party,  but  is  the  natural  result  of  the  free  movement  of  all 
parties,  whose  manifold  and  intricate  conflicts  have  been  the 
source  of  endless  transformations  for  themselves,  and  of  con- 
tinual refreshment  for  science.  Doubtless,  also,  among  the 
more  cultivated  peoples,  the  Germans  until  recently  had  the 
most  leisure  to  spend  in  learned  pursuits  of  this  kind.  The 
writer  of  the  History  of  Exegesis  might  pass  over  the  works  of 
other  countries  without  detriment  to  its  value,  since  they  fol- 
low scarcely  any  path  not  previously  trodden  by  one  of  the 
schools  already  described,  and  for  the  most  part  seem  to  have 
taken  up  the  role  of  imitation  intentionally. 

England,  France,  and  Holland,  the  Reformed  churches  in  general,  in  the 
seventeenth  century  stood  without  dispute  far  in  advance  of  the  German 
Lutherans  in  all  historical  and  philological  knowledge.  Why  have  they 
since  remained  stationary  or  retrograded  ?  In  France  the  fact  is  explained 
simply  by  the  civil  extinction  of  Protestantism  ;  the  prevailingly  political 
and  commercial  activity  may  have  contributed  elsewhere  ;  the  boldness  of 
naturalism  doubtless  in  many  cases  deterred  theology  from  taking  advan- 
tage of  its  learning  for  the  benefit  of  dogmatics  ;  but  may  it  not  be  that 
while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  spiritual  element  which  dwells  indestructibly  in 
Lutheranism  finally  broke  through  the  limitations  of  the  intellect,  and  con- 
tinued to  do  so,  on  the  other  the  absence  of  this  element  and  the  strict  doc- 
trinal and  ecclesiastical  discipline  just  as  natural  to  Calvinism,  which  more 
and  more  precluded,  in  particular,  a  human  and  natural  treatment  of  the 
written  word,  made  these  limitations  more  and  more  rigid  from  generation 
to  generation  ?  Lack  of  movement  leads  to  death.  But  recent  decades 
have  begun  to  bring  an  improvement. 

Moreover,  we  scarcely  hear  anything  of  what  is  accomplished  in  this  field 
elsewhere,  and  are  able  to  judge  of  the  whole  only  from  single  examples. 
Since  the  actual  or  imagined  necessity  of  reading  or  translating  foreign  exe- 
getical  \^Titings  has  ceased  in  Germany,  the  book-trade  no  longer  brings 
them  to  us  regularly.     Cf.  §  347  f. 


HISTORICAL  CRITICISM  — ENGLAND  — HOLLAND.         621 

597.  Tn  general,  however,  it  may  be  said  of  the  Biblical  The- 
ology of  the  non-German  Protestant  countries  that  it  occupies 
a  conservative  standpoint,  and  even  when  it  contends  against 
opponents,  finds  them  only  in  the  scholastic  field,  or  at  least 
knows  them  only  at  a  distance  and  by  hearsay.  England  and 
Holland  still  furnish  the  most  contributions ;  the  latter  in 
more  learned  form,  and  representing  the  studies  of  the  schools ; 
the  former  rather  applied  to  life  and  designed  for  the  use  of 
the  pulpit.  Accurate  philological  research  is  honored  in  both 
places,  but  in  the  former  often  introduced  as  a  foreign  com- 
modity and  always  used  simply  as  a  means,  in  the  latter,  on 
the  contrary,  indigenous,  but  often  itself  apparently  the  final 
aim  of  the  work.  Denmark  we  might  almost  count  in  with 
Germany,  as  we  have  done  with  Switzerland.  Her  best  re- 
sults are  immediately  translated.  The  farther  north,  which  is 
illuminated  by  stars  of  the  first  magnitude  in  so  many  sciences, 
is  enveloped  in  darkness  with  respect  to  ours. 

What  has  been  said  of  England  is  true  also  of  North  America.  If  a  mere 
list  of  titles  would  suffice  it  might  be  made  out  from  English  catalogues, 
which  show  that  the  (external)  ricluiess  is  very  great. 

The  larger  works  extant  belong  mostly  in  the  field  of  practical  theology 
in  consequence  of  their  jjopular  historical  (e.  g.,  J.  Bellamy,  O.  T.,  1818)  or 
even  edificatory  (e.  g.,  Matthew  Henry  and  Th.  Scott,  N.  T.  ;  A.  Barnes, 
Isaiah,  Job,  N.  T.,  1832  ;  J.  B.  Sumner,  Gospels,  1834)  treatment  of  the 
text ;  among  the  smaller  ones  are  some  with  philological  annotations  (e.  g., 
E.  Valpy,  N.  T.,  1816,  and  freq.  ;  S.  T.  Bloomfield,  N.  T.,  1830,  and  freq.  ; 
W.  Trollope,  N.  T.,  1837;  E.  Card  well,  N.  T.,  1837;  H.  Robinson,  Acts, 
1824),  others  with  scholarly  comments  (e.  g.,  S.  Lee,  Job,  1837;  G.  Holden, 
Proverbs,  1819  ;  Moses  Stuart,  Romans,  1833  ;  Hebrews,  1827),  and  some 
of  a  special  dogmatic  and  controversial  character  (R.  Haldane,  Romans, 
1816).  Many  others  are  mentioned  above.  Especially  characteristic,  in 
view  of  tlie  complete  lack  of  freedom  in  practice  and  utter  dependence  upon 
tradition,  is  the  painful  accuracy  in  the  regulation  of  method  and  in  the 
theory  of  hermeneutics,  e.  g.,  in  Home's  Introduction,  II.  (§  347).  A  com- 
mentary on  Romans  by  J.  W.  Colenso  (§  347),  1861.  A  great  work  under- 
taken by  several  writers  under  official  patronage  :  The  Speaker's  Bible  has 
recently  begun  to  appear  ;  see  the  Studien,  1872,  IV.  [Edited  by  Canon 
Cook  ;  O.  T.,  6  vols.,  completed  in  1876  ;  N.  T.,  4  vols.,  1881,  London, 
Murray.] 

Of  the  older  Dutch  exegetes  it  may  be  asserted  with  truth  that  they  are 
disciples  of  Ernesti,  perhaps  of  somewhat  more  steadfast  orthodoxy,  so  far  as 
doctrine  comes  into  view  with  them  at  all  ;  certainly  less  prejudiced  in  favor 
of  the  confessional  theology  than  the  English,  and  freer  in  distinguishing  it 
from  the  biblical.  A.  des  Amorie  v.  d.  Hoeven,  Oratio  de  germano  theologo 
ss.  II.  interpretc.  Delft,  1828  ;  J.  H.  Pareau,  Institutio  interpretis  V.  T.,  Traj. 
1822  ;  L.  G.  Pareau,  Hermeneutica  cod.  s.,  Gron.  1846.  More  recently  this 
has  changed,  and  the  activity  in  this  field  has  become  very  varied,  but  more 
and  more  inaccessible  to  foreigners.  —  Of  the  extended  and  theologically  im- 
portant commentaries  unfortunately  but  few  are  thoroughly  known  to  me  ; 
a  great  number  written  in  Dutch  are  to  be  found  in  the  catalogues.  Latin 
writings  on  shorter  books  (Taco  Roorda,  at  Groningen,  on  Jeremiah  ;  Juyn- 
boU,  at  Leyden,  on  Amos  ;  T.  A.  Clarisse,  at  Leyden,  on  the  Psalms  of  De- 


622  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

ffrees  ;  J.  H.  v.  d.  Palm,  at  Leyden,  on  Ecelesiastes  ;  L.  C.  Valckenaer,  lec- 
tures on  various  books  of  the  N.  T.  ;  W.  A.  v.  Hengel,  annotations  on  the 
same  and  on  Ronians  and  Philippians  ;  E.  A.  Borger,  on  Galatians  ;  J.  v. 
Voorst,  on  Matthew  ;  and  many  others),  but  especially  numerous  academic 
monoo-raphs  of  considerable  extent  upon  special  questions  and  single  chap- 
ters, frequently  reach  us  ;  many  of  these  have  been  cited  above  in  their  ap- 
propriate places. 

H.  M.  Clausen's  (at  Copenhagen)  Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.  (German,  1841) 
is  in  o-reat  part  historical  in  contents,  hesitating  in  its  theory,  in  style  and 
method  Germar's  (§  583).  The  theological  parties  are  very  sharply  opposed 
there. 

598.  In  France,  after  a  long  night,  it  seems  to  be  about  to 
dawn.  True,  the  Protestant  people  there  were  never  without 
the  Bible,  and  it  has  been  commended  to  them  by  their  teach- 
ers with  sufl&eient  urgency  and  richly  expounded  for  consola- 
tion and  edification.  But  of  a  scientific  theological  study  and 
use  of  it  there  was  for  a  long  time  nothing  to  say,  and  exegesis 
and  its  related  sciences  were  in  Geneva  a  subordinate  matter, 
in  Montauban  unknown.  Occasional  translations  from  the 
German  and  English  scarcely  found  readers,  or  repelled  them 
altogether  by  their  foreign  spirit.  Yet  these  and  the  first  in- 
dependent works  of  younger  theologians  were  sacrificed  to  a 
hope  which  did  not  wholly  fail  of  its  reward.  The  academic 
instruction  has  been  improved.  A  new  generation  is  prepar- 
ing itself  to  combine  happily  zeal  for  science  with  zeal  for  the 
Church ;  it  may  some  day  bring  to  the  older  workers  at  a  dis- 
tance welcome  aid  for  the  common  task.  Until  then  it  is 
double  joy  to  see  the  newly  planted  garden,  however  slowly, 
grow  green  and  thrive,  if  one  has  himself  handled  the  spade. 

The  literature  is  as  yet  easily  surveyed  ;  of.  §  348.  For  dogmatics  and 
ethics,  so  far  as  the  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures  is  concerned,  little  has 
yet  been  done.  The  foundation  of  the  first  has  been  laid  by  E.  Scherer, 
ProUgomhies  a  la  dogmatique  de  VEglise  ref.,  1843  ;  but  it  has  thus  far  been 
carried  out  (by  J.  J.  Cheneviere,  at  Geneva  (f  1871),  Essais  de  TheoL, 
1830  ff.  ;  Dogmatique,  1840,  and  A.  Coquerel,  at  Paris,  Le  christianisme  ex- 
pe'rimental,  1847;  Ckristologie,  1857)  only  in  a  spirit  which  does  not  bring  it 
within  the  scope  of  our  history. 

Exegetical  studies  (Introduction,  Hermeneutics,  ArchfEology,  and  Inter- 
pretation) obtained  their  impulse  from  Geneva,  through  J.  E.  Cellerier 
(t  1862),  cf.  §  20.  (Manuel  d'hermeneutique  biblique,  1852  ;  Ep.  de  Jaques, 
1850  ;  Esprit  de  la  le'gisl.  mosa'ique,  after  Michaelis  ;  apologetic  writings.) 
They  were  in  the  spirit  of  Ernesti  and  the  Dutch  scholars,  adding  to  the 
grammatical  principle  of  interpretation  the  theological  and  apologetic  as  its 
necessary  complement.  M.  Nicolas  (now  at  Montauban),  Essai  d'herme- 
neutique, 1838,  after  Cellerier  and  Twesten.  A.  Sardinoux  (now  at  the  same 
place),  on  Galatians,  1837;  A.  Rilliet,  at  Geneva,  on  Philippians,  1841  ;  H. 
Oltramare,  at  Geneva,  on  Romans,  1843,  with  an  introductory  hermeneutic 
theory,  on  which  see  Allg.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1846,  I.  865  ;  E.  Arnaud,  at  Bor- 
deaux and  Crest,  §  498,  on  Jude,  1851,  Comra.  sur  le  N.  T.,  1863,  4  vols., 
popular  ;  L.  Tliomas,  at  Geneva,  on  1  John,  1849  ;  E.  de  Pressense,  at  Paris, 
Hist,  des  trois  premiers  siecles,  1858  £f.,  5  vols.  [E.  tr.  by  Annie  Harwood, 


HISTORICAL  CRITICISM  — FRANCE.  623 

The  Earhj  Days  of  Christianity,  Lond.  and  N.  Y.  1870  &.,  4  vols.]  ;  all  under 
the  influence  of  German  science.  Also  a  translation  of  Neander's  Ap.  Gesch. 
by  F.  Fontanes,  of  Nimes,  and  of  his  practical  commentary  on  several  epis- 
tles. More  decidedly  in  the  spirit  of  historical  criticism,  exegetical  essays  in 
the  Strassb.  Revue,  by  J.  Steeg,  A.  Reville,  and  others. 

In  contrast  with  this  school,  in  strict  Calvinistic  or  ultra-conservative  spirit, 
translations  from  the  English,  at  Paris  and  Toulouse  (Hodge  and  Haldane 
on  Romans,  Henry  and  Scott  on  Psalms,  the  latter  on  Matthew,  Acts,  Ro- 
mans); from  the  German,  especially  at  Neufchatel  (Olshausen,  Tieferer 
Schriftsinn,  and  portions  of  his  commentary  ;  Schroder,  on  Genesis).  A  col- 
lection of  scholia  :  S.  Descombaz,  Guide  biblique,  1856,  3  vols. 

Not  much  that  is  new  and  original  has  thus  far  appeared  from  this  coun- 
try :  J.  H.  Grand-Pierre,  Essais  sur  le  Pentateuque,  1844,  a  solution  of  knotty 
points,  after  the  fashion  of  Lilienthal  or  Michaelis.  Monneron,  on  Corin- 
thians, 1851,  is  a  paraphrase.  F.  Godet,  of  Neufchatel,  on  John,  1864  ['2d 
ed.  1877;  E.  tr.  in  3  vols.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1877;  3d  ed.  of  the  original,  1881]  ; 
Luke,  1871  [E.  tr.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1875]  ;  Etudes  bibliques  sur  I' A.  T.,  1873. 
A.  de  Mestral,  of  Lausanne,  on  Genesis,  1863.  (Astie,  at  Lausanne)  on 
John,  1863.  A.  Monod,  on  Ephesians,  1867.  F.  de  Rougemont,  on  Ecclesi- 
astes,  1844.  H.  Lutteroth,  at  Paris,  a  still  unfinished  commentary  on  Mat- 
thew, 1860  e.  Several  works  on  the  Psalms  by  C.  Bruston,  1865,  1873, 
especially  distinguished  by  bold  criticism  of  the  text.  Important  articles  in 
the  theological  supplement  of  the  Revue  Chretienne  and  of  the  Paris  Revue  de 
theologie  begun  in  1870.  On  the  other  hand  a  new  edition  of  Calvin's  com- 
mentary on  the  N.  T.  in  the  old  French  translation,  P.  1855,  4  vols.  8°. 

In  advance  of  the  time  there  came  from  Strassburg  scholarly  exegetical 
works  on  the  O.  T.  :  J.  G.  Dahler  (f  1832),  on  Jeremiah,  1825  ;  J.  D.  F. 
Burger  (f  1845),  on  Zechariah,  1841.  Numerous  academic  occasional  writ- 
ings have  been  introduced  in  their  appropriate  place.  As  to  how  far  dog- 
matics and  criticism  are  considered  in  them,  cf.  §  348.  In  more  recent 
times  only  H.  W.  Kienlen,  on  the  Apocalypse,  1870. 

On  the  Catholic  side  there  is  nothing  of  importance  to  mention  here  (cf. 
§  499),  for  the  works  of  E.  Renan  (Job,  1859  ;  Canticles,  1860  ;  Vie  de 
Jesus,  1863,  13th  ed.  1867;  Les  Apotres,  1866  ;  St.  Paul,  1869  ;  L' Antechrist, 
1873)  are  wholly  outside  this  sphere.  Numerous  other  attempts  at  transla- 
tion, especially  of  the  poetic  books  of  the  O.  T.,  without  exegetical  value. 

599.  But  until  the  fruits  of  the  greater  work  which  has  been 
committed  by  God  to  the  human  mind,  and  upon  whicli  bibli- 
cal scholars  have  already  long  been  engaged,  with  painful  labor 
and  noble  art,  have  come  to  maturity,  let  the  lesser,  easier, 
and  more  immediately  remunerative  still  be  commended  to 
every  Christian.  It  is  the  duty  of  science  to  see  difficulties, 
the  office  of  reason  to  cherish  doubt,  the  prerogative  of  the 
understanding  never  to  be  satisfied  with  what  it  has ;  the  more 
the  subject  with  which  they  have  to  do  contains  elements 
which  do  not  spring  from  earth,  the  less  is  there  an  end  of 
questioning  and  discussion.  But  that  is  not  the  fault  of  the 
Bible.  It  gives  to  every  one,  and  has  always  given,  that 
which  he  can  always  use  and  should  first  of  all  seek,  consola- 
tion, instruction,  discipline,  and  hope.  The  unlearned  multi- 
tude have  obtained  more  good  from  it  than  the  learned  scliools, 
because,  following  the  hermeneutics  of  nature,  they  do  not  at- 


624  HISTORY  OF  EXEGESIS. 

tempt  to  enjoy  it  all  at  once.  For  that  is  beyond  human 
power.  For  every  day  its  care ;  for  every  time  its  text ;  there 
are  texts  for  all  times.  The  devout  heart  finds  it  out  from 
amid  the  mass,  and  with  its  meaning  consoles  itself  for  the 
rest.  Of  such  it  is  said,  "  Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen 
and  yet  have  believed !  " 

In  this  book,  with  a  few  unavoidable  departures,  the  author  has  held  fast 
to  the  design  of  recounting  the  history  of  the  scientific  theological  use  of  the 
Scriptures.  He  has  avoided  bringing  in  the  practical  and  popular  use  of 
them,  beside  many  other  reasons,  chiefly  because  he  is  not  sufficiently  famil- 
iar with  its  history.  This  may  be  a  defect ;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
such  a  history  could  be  written  without  continually  runumg  back  into  the 
other.  There  are  manuals  of  popular  hermeneutics,  there  are  practical  com- 
mentaries in  great  numbers,  with  and  without  tliese  ambiguous  names  ;  it 
would  be  easy  to  show  that  they  likewise  uphold  the  tenets  of  their  particu- 
lar schools.  I  would  gladly  see  the  material  relating  to  the  subject  worked 
up  into  a  history  of  the  progress,  not  of  Christianity  toward  the  universal 
religion,  but  of  mankind  toward  the  Church.     But  who  shall  write  it  ? 

Nevertheless,  amid  the  clamorous  confusion  of  the  present,  and  the  tumult 
of  party  wrangling,  daily  growing  wilder,  in  which  those  standing  in  the 
closest  relations  to  one  another  are  in  the  bitterest  controversy  over  things 
which  even  scholars  scarcely  understand,  and  to  which  the  multitude  is 
altogether  indifferent,  it  is  a  consoling  fact  that  more  and  more  are  coming 
to  the  conviction,  and  expressing  it,  that  religious  science,  like  the  Church,  is 
not  for  theologians  alone,  and  that  if  the  school  is  to  be  a  helj)  to  Cliristianity 
and  the  Cliurcli,  it  must  allow  the  Church  a  more  active  part  in  the  work  than 
this  cloister  learning  and  Puseyism  among  us  does  or  admits.  In  tliis  respect 
Germany  must  see  to  it  that  she  is  not  outstripped  again.  (E.  Reuss,  L'Eglise 
et  UEcole,  1854.) 

In  place  of  all  others  we  mention  here  but  one  book,  very  recent  and  least 
of  all  conscious  of  the  goal  hinted  at  in  it,  the  Bihelwerk  of  C.  C.  J.  Bunsen, 
1858  ff.,  a  sign  of  the  times,  but  also  a  pledge  for  the  future. 

600.  Thus  the  history  of  the  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures 
shows  that  the  Church  for  but  a  short  time  received  the  will  of 
her  Lord  and  the  teaching  of  his  disciples  through  brief  and 
simple  instruction,  and  that  Christian  theologians  have  been 
laboring  for  seventeen  hundred  years  since  to  fix  by  learning 
and  speculation  the  meaning  of  certain  pages  which  were  writ- 
ten for  the  unlearned  and  simple-minded.  True,  there  were 
always  preachers  whose  childlike  souls  perceived  what  the  in- 
tellect of  the  scholar  never  saw,  and  struck  the  note  which  the 
Apostles  had  struck ;  but  their  number  was  small,  their  fame 
and  influence  never  the  greatest.  The  loudest  word  in  the 
science  of  the  Scriptures  has  always  been  spoken  by  those  who 
have  thought  that  the  truth  could  be  discovered  and  established 
by  the  rules  and  definitions  of  scholastic  philosophy.  In  a  first 
period  they  lost  themselves  in  the  vast  labyrinths  of  allegory, 
decking  the  Word  with  the  motley  tinsel  of  their  conceits  ;  in 
the  second  they  allowed  themselves  to  be  bound  in  the  shackles 
of  the  systems,  and  crushed  the  life  out  of  it  with  the  iron  con- 


SUMMARY.  625 

sistency  of  their  logic.  Their  laws,  mostly  designed  to  make 
exegesis  responsible  for  the  caprices  of  dogmatics,  her  mistress, 
stand  side  by  side  unreconciled  to-day ;  the  clearest  passages 
are  differently  explained  ;  the  hermeneutic  formula  able  to 
unite  all  voices  is  not  yet  found,  and  the  impossibility  of 
finding  it,  which  is  becoming  more  and  more  evident,  is  an 
earnest  warning  uttered  by  history  to  those  who  forget  that 
they  should  be  servants,  not  of  the  letter  which  killeth,  but  of 
the  spirit  which  maketh  alive. 
40 


INDEX 


(the  figdees  refer  to  sections.) 


Abbreviations,  375. 
Abdias,  2G8. 
Abelard,  Peter,  533.' 
Abgar,  26G. 

Abraliam  Aben  Ezra,  539. 
Abravaiiel,  539. 
Accents,  in  MSS.,  37G. 
Accidental  Alterations,  364  ff. 
Acts,  Apocrypliai,  267  f. 

Gnostic,  2G1. 

of  Peter,  253  ff. 

of  Pilale,  258. 

of  the  Apostles,  202  ff. 
Additions  to  tlie  N.  T.  Boolis,  238  ff. 

to  the  Gospels,  238  ff. 

to  Marli's  Gospel,  240. 

to  Fourth  Gospel,  239. 
^thiopic  Canon,  326. 
Afghan  Version,  495. 
African  Versions,  495. 
Aitton,  H.  A.,  419. 
Albanian  Version,  496. 
Alberti,  J.,  565. 
Albert  of  Regensburg,  533. 
Albifjenses,  330,  465. 
Albrecht,  C.  584. 
Alcuin,  456,  528. 
Alexander  Ales.,  534. 
Alexandrian  Exegesis,  504,  509  ff. 

Philosophy,  Relation  to  Christian- 
ity, 25. 

School,  510. 

Text,  370. 

Version  (LXX.),  45,  283. 
Alford,  H.,419. 

Allegorical  Interpretation,  504,  506  ff. 
Alogi,  327. 
Alphen,  H.  van,  570. 
Alphonsus  To-tatus,  3-31,  541. 
Alterations,  Accidental,  364  ff. 

Designed,  357  ff. 

Dogmatic,  361  f . 
Alter,  F.  C,  411. 
Alulf  of  Tournay,  526, 
Alzog,  J.,  595. 
Amanuenses,  76,  351. 
Ambrose,  362,  517. 
Ambrosiaster,  520. 
Amharic  Version,  442. 
Amnion,  C.  F.,  577,  580. 
Ammonius,  385. 
Amphilochius,  316,  32u. 


Amyraut,  M.,  555. 
Anastasius,  328,  362. 
Andreas  and  Arethas,  527. 
Angelonius,  528. 
Anglican  Confession,  332,  333. 
Anglo-Saxon  Version,  462. 
Augrianus,  Michael,  535. 
Anschmink,  H.  P.,  584. 
Anselm  of  Laon,  529. 
Antilegomena,  314,  317. 
Antioch,  57. 

Antiochian  School,  320,  518. 
Antonius  Nebrissensis,  543. 
Anton,  Paul,  559. 
Antwerp  Polvglot,  403. 
Apelles,  245,"292. 
Apocalypse,  of  John,  156  ff. 

of  Peter,  310. 
Apocalypses,  Apocryphal,  274. 

Gnostic,  202. 
Apocalyptic  Exegesis,  561,  584. 
Apocrypha,  Extra-biblical,  293. 

Meaning  of  the  term,  318. 

of  the  N.  T.,  243. 

of  the  0.  T.,  317,  319,  333,  349. 

of  the  O   T.  quoted  in  N.  T.,  283. 
Apocryphal  Apocalypses,  274. 
'Gospels,  262ff. 

Legends  in  the  Koran,  263. 
Apollinaris,  294. 
Apollos,  153. 
Apostles,  1,  28  ff. 
Apostles'  Creed,  279. 
Apostolic  Canons,  278. 

Church,  31  ff.,  37. 

Constitutions,  277,  312,  317. 

Didaskalia,  277. 

Fathers,  287  ff. 

Preaching,  36,  50  ff. 

Theology,  29,  32. 
Apostolos,  300. 
Apparatus  Criticus,  391. 
Aquinum,  Thomas  of,  533  f. 
Arabic  Conquest,  371. 

Versions,  437  ff.,  491. 
Aramaisms,  46. 
Arboreus,  J.,  551. 
Archa?ology,  Biblical,  566. 
Arcularius,  D.,  555. 
Arians,  327,  362. 
Arigler,  A.,  595. 
Armbruster,  C,  584. 


628 


INDEX. 


Armenian  Canon,  326. 

Versions,  432,  491,  495. 
Arminians,  340,  5U3. 
Armorican  Version,  489. 
Arnaiid,  E.,  348,  508. 
Arnauld,  A.,  DG2. 
Arnctli,  M.,  595. 
Artemonites,  3G2. 
Asboth,  J.,  579. 
Astie,  598. 

Athanasius,  320,  516,  517. 
Athenagoras,  294. 
Atto  of  Vercclii,  527. 
Auberlen,  C.  A.,  590. 
August!,  J.  C.  W.,  588. 
Augustine,  323,  325,  450,  452,  517. 
Autograplis,  351. 

Bahnmeier,  E.,  584. 
Biilir,  C.  F.,  588. 
Bahrdt,  C.  F,,  487,  568,  575. 
Buhrdt,  J.  F.,  581. 
Balduin,  F.,  555. 
Banliolzer,  F.,  584. 
Bardesanes,  292. 
Barnabas,  50,  G4. 

Epistle  of,  234,  287,  293,  317. 

Gospel  of,  203. 
Barnes,  A.,  597. 
Bashmuric  Version,  430. 
Basil,  510. 

Basilides,  245,  292,  508. 
Basque  Version,  489. 
Baudrv,  Abbe  de,  348. 
Bauer,"  Br.,  591. 
Bauer,  C.  L.,  505. 
Bauer,  G.  L.,  577,  580. 
Baumgarten,  M.,  590. 
Baumgarten,  S.  J.,  409,  570. 
Baumgarten-Crusius,  587. 
Baur,'F.  C,  19,  23,  344. 
Baur,  V.  F.,  577. 
Beaubrun,  5G2. 
Beausobre,  Is.  de,  568. 
Bebel,  B.,  554. 

Editions,  401. 
Beck,  C.  D.,  579. 
Beck,  J.  T.,  590. 
Bede,  527. 
Bellamy,  J.,  597. 
Bellarmine,  R.,  337,  552. 
Belgic  Confession,  332,  333,  335. 
Benecke,  W.,  587. 
Bengel,  E.,  5G1. 
Ben  gel,  E.  G.,  582. 
Bengel,  J.  A.,  410,  561. 
Benner,  J.  H.,  570. 
Benson,  G.,  509. 
Bentley,  R.,  409. 
Berchorius,  Petriis,  535. 
Berger,  C.  G.,  561. 
Berger,  J.  G.  L,  583. 
Berleburg  BH)le,  487,  559. 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  535. 
Berruver,  I.  J.,  552. 
Beza,"404,  549. 
Bezan  Editions,  404. 
Bible  Societies,  349,  494  ff. 
Bible  Text,  Articles  on,  351. 


Biblical  Philology,  565. 

Theology,  594. 
Bibliotheca  Breniensis,  557. 
Bilingual  Manuscripts,  381. 
Billroth,  G.,  590,  591. 
Birch,  A.,  411. 
Biscayan  Version,  489. 
Bishops,  37. 
Bishops'  Bible,  475. 
Blcek,  F.,  593. 
Bloomfield,  S.  T.,  419,  597. 
Bochart,  S.,  500. 
Bodenstein,  A.,  334. 
Bohemian  Confession,  332. 

Versions,  407  f.,  477  f.,  488. 
Buhme,  576. 
Bohmer,  J.  G.,  501. 
Bohmer,  W.,  588. 
Boissonnade,  J.  F.,  419. 
Bolten,  J.  A.,  570. 
Bonaventura,  534,  535. 
Bonifas,  F.,  348. 
Boost,  J.  A.,  584. 
Borger,  E.  A.,  597. 
Bornemann,  F.  A.,  592. 
Bos,  L.,  505. 
Braun,  J.,  557,  560. 
Breathings  in  Manuscripts,  376. 
Breeches  Bible,  475. 
Breitliaupt,  J.  J.,  558. 
Brenius,  D.,  550. 
Brentano,  Dom.  v.,  595. 
Brentz,  J.,  548. 
Bretschneider,  S.  G.,  579. 
Breviary,  380. 
Brightman,  Th.,  561. 
Brosset,  419. 
Brothers  of  Jesus,  56. 
Bruston,  C,  598. 
Brylinger  Famil^y  (Editions),  403. 
Bucer  (Butzer),  549. 
Buddeus,  J.  F.,  500,  506. 
Bugenhagen,  J.,  548. 
Bullinger,  H.,  549,  501. 
Bunsen,  C.  C.  J.,  599. 
Burger,  J.  D.  F.,  598. 
Burgos,  Paulus  of,  541. 
Burmann,  F.,  557. 
Burscher,  J.  F.,  581. 
Biisching,  A.  F.,  5G8. 
Buttmann,  Ph.,  410,  580. 
Butzer,  M.  (Bucerj,  549. 

Csedmon,  4G2. 

Cffisarea,  Epistles  (of  Paul)  from,  114. 

Librar3'  of,  365. 
Caius,  313. 

Cajetan,  Cardinal,  331,  543. 
Ca'lixtus,  G.,  555. 
Callcnberg,  J.  II.,  491  ff. 
Calligraphers,  351. 
Calniet,  A.,  552. 
Calov,  A.,  340,  555. 
Calvin,  J.,  333,  3-35,  474,  549  f. 
Calvinistic  Exegesis, 549    f. 
Camerarius,  J.,  548. 
Canon,  316,  346. 

History  of  the,  281  ff. 

in  the  Middle  Ages,  329  £f. 


INDEX. 


629 


Canon  of  Marcion,  291. 

of  the  Latin  Church,  322. 

of  the  lieformers,  332  ff. 
Canonical  Books,  316. 
Canons,  Apostolic,  278,  321. 
Canstein,  484. 
Canticles,  536. 
Capito,  W.  F.,  549. 
Cappelle,  J.,  565. 
Cappelle,  L.,  565. 

Carcaplientian  Version  (Syriac),  427. 
Cardwell,  E.,  597. 
Carlstadt,  A.,  334. 
Carpocrales,  245,  292, 
Carpzov,  J.  B.,  581. 
Carpzov,  .T.  G.,  566. 
Carthaginian  Councils,  324. 
Casaubon,  I.,  505. 
Caspari,  C.  P.,  588. 
Cassiodorus,  328,  456,  522,  526. 
Castalio,  S.,  487,  549. 
Catalan  Version,  496. 
Catenae,  531. 
Cathari,  330,  465. 
Catharinus,  A.,  551. 
Catholic  Church,  288,  296, 

Criticism,  21. 

Epistles,  142  ff.,  301. 

Exegesis,  551  f.,  595. 

Pseudepigrapha.  264  ff. 

Versions,  478  if.',  488,  499, 
Cellerier,  J.  E.,  598. 
Celsius,  O.,  566. 
Celtic  Versions,  489. 
Central  Asiatic  Versions,  495. 
Centuries,  Magdeburg,  333. 
Cerinthus,  245. 
Chapters,  386. 

Charlemagne,  328,  456,  463,  528. 
Chastillon,  S.,  487,  549. 
Chemnitz,  M.,  339,  5.55. 
Chenevi^re,  J.  J.,  598. 
Childhood,  Gospels  of  the,  265. 
Chimonius,  G.  F.,  561. 
Chinese  Versions,  492,  495. 
Chladni,  M.,  560. 
Christian!,  W.  B.,  ,561. 
Chrysoloras,  Manuel,  530. 
Chrvsostom,  320,  4;i4,  519. 
Church,  Catholic,  288,  296. 

Fathers,  Exegesis  of,  509  ff. 

Fathers,  Quotations  in  (Canon),  294. 

Fathers,  Quotations   in  (Criticism), 
394. 

Government,  Apostolic,  37,  130. 
Chytrjeus,  D.,  555. 
Circulation  of  the  N.  T.,  284  f. 
Citations,  294,  394. 
Clarius,  Isid.,  551. 
Clarke,  S.,  569. 
Clarisse,  T.  A.,  597. 
Classics,  Studv  of,  542. 
Claudius  of  Turin,  527. 
Clausen,  H.  N.,  597. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  293,  297  f .,  509,  510. 

of  Rome,  1st  Ep.  to  Cor.,  235,  287, 
293,  317. 

of  Rome,  2d  Ep.  to  Cor.,  273. 
aementines,  254  ff.,  292. 


Clementine  Vulgate,  482. 
Clerc,  J.  le  (ClericusK  563. 
Cocceius,  J., -557.  /  / -^ 
Codices,  352  f.,  372  f.,  392. 

Bilingues,  381. 

Latinizantes,  360. 

Rescripti,  373. 
Colenso,  J.  W.,  347,  597. 
Colines  S.  de  (Colinajus),  402. 
Colin,  D.  von,  593. 
Colossians,  Epistle  to,  118  ff. 
Comestor,  Petrus,  466,  533. 
Companions  of  Paul,  08. 
Compilation,  527. 
Complutensian  Polyglot,  399. 
Confessio  Anglica,  332,  333. 

Belgica,  332,  333,  335. 

Bohemiana,  332. 

Dosilhei,  338,  490. 

Gallica,  332,  333. 

Helvetica,  I.,  332,  546. 

Helvetica,  II.,  332,  333,  335,  546. 

Scotica,  546. 

Wirtembergica,  335. 
Conformation  of  the  Text  of  the  Gospels, 

358. 
Conjectures  (Criticism),  398. 
Conservative  Criticism,  20. 
Constantinople,  Council  of,  328. 
Constantinopolitan  Text,  370. 
Constitutions,  Apostolic,  277,  312. 
Coptic  Versions,  430,  491. 
Coquerel,  A.,  598. 
Corinth,  93. 

Church  of,  93. 
Corinthians,  Epistles  to,  93  ff. 

Third  Ep.  to,  272. 
Corrections,  357. 
Correctoria  Bililica,  456. 
Corrodi,  H.,  570. 
Cosmas,  328. 
Council  of  Carthage,  324. 

Constantinople,  328. 

Florence,  325. 

Hippo,  324. 

Jerusalem,  65. 

Laodicea,  321. 

Nica?a,  328. 

Trent,  3-J6,  482,  552. 
Courcelles,  E.  de  (Curcellseus),  407. 
Cramer,  J.  A.,  570. 
Credner,  C  A.,  19. 
Crell,  J.  556. 
Crell,  S.,  556. 
Creolese  Version,  492. 
Crinsoz,  561. 
Crispin,  J.,  403. 
Critical  Apparatus,  391. 
Critici  Sacri,  565,  567. 
Croatian  Version,  489. 
Cruciger,  C.,  548. 
Crusius,  C.  A.,  570,  590. 
Cuna>us,  P.,  566. 
Ciirsive  Character,  375. 
Cyprian,  313,  516. 
Cyril,  446. 

Cvrillic  Character,  446. 
Cvril  of  Jerusalem,  320,  516,  517. 
Cyril  Lucar,  338,  490. 


630 


INDEX. 


Dahler,  J.  G.,  598. 

Dalmatian  Version,  489. 

Danish  Versions,  467,  472,  485,  487,  497. 

Damni,  C.  T.,  575. 

Dannhawer,  J.  C,  553. 

Danz,  J.  A.,  572. 

Darby,  584. 

Dassov,  T.,  555,  566. 

Dathe,  J.  A.,  572. 

Declaratio  Tiiorun.,  333,  546. 

Decretum  Gelasii,  324. 

De  DieiT,  L.,  565. 

Deism,  575. 

Delitzsch,  F.,  588. 

Dereser,  T.  A.,  595. 

De  Rossi,  J.  B.,  .595. 

De  Sacy,  Le  Maistre,  562. 

Descombaz,  S.,  598. 

Designed  Alterations,  357  £E. 

De  Soto,  Dom.,  551. 

D'Espence,  C,  551. 

Deusing,  H.,  557. 

Deuterocanonical  Books,  317. 

Deutschmann,  J.,  554. 

De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.,  19,  580,  587. 

Deyling,  S.,  560. 

Dickinson,  A.,  419. 

Dicta  aypa(l>a,  167. 

Probantia,  554. 
Didaskalia,  Apostolic,  277. 
Diderot,  341. 
Didvmus,  320,  517. 
Dietelmair,  J.  A.,  340. 
Dietrich,  C,  339. 
Dieu,  L.  de,  565. 
Dilherr,  M.,  555. 
Dinter,  G.  F.,  576. 
Diodore  of  Tarsus,  518. 
Diognetus,  Epistle  to,  294. 
Dionysius  Carthus.,  331. 

of  Alexandria,  312,  513. 

of  Corinth,  294. 

of  Rickel,  541. 

AiopOuxreiS,  357. 

Diplomatics,  Works  on,  352. 

Disciples  of  Jesus,  28  ff. 

Discourses  of  the  Apostles,  50  £E. 

Doddridge,  Ph.,  569. 

Diiderlein,  G.  A.,  346,  568. 

Doderlein,  J.  C,  572. 

Dogmatic  Alterations,  361  f. 

Doring,  Matthias,  541. 

Dorsch,  J.  G.,  554,  555. 

Doughtev,  J.,  565. 

D'Outrein,  J.,  557. 

Driessen,  A.,  557. 

Drusius,  565,  566. 

Druthmar,  Christianus,  528. 

Du  Fossci,  562. 

Du  Moulin,  339. 

Duncan,  W.,  419. 

Du  Pin,  L.  E.,  337. 

Dupuis,  575. 

Dutch  Versions,  467  f.,  472,  478,  485,  487. 

Early  Church,  Composition,  53. 

Churches,  Organization,  37. 
Eschat.ological  Ideas,  26. 
Gospels,  186  ff. 


East  Indian  Versions,  492,  495. 

Ebrard,  J.  H.  A.,  588,  591. 

Ecclesiastici  Libri,  317. 

Eckermann,  J.  C.  K.,  346,  576,  577. 

Eckhard,  T.,  565. 

Edelmann,  341. 

Editions  of  the  Greek  Text,  395  ff. 

Egyptians,  Gospel  of,  245. 

Egyptian  Versions,  430. 

Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  19,  578,  580. 

Elders,  37. 

Eisner,  J.,  565. 

Elzevirs,  406. 

Engelmann,  528. 

English  Bible  Societies,  349. 

Polyglot,  567. 

Theology,  347,  597. 

Versions,  467,  475,  478,  485,  487  f., 
497  f. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to.  118  ff. 
Ephesus,  Residence  of  Paul  at,  87. 
Ephreni  Syrus,  517. 
Epiphanius,  320,  508. 
Episcopius,  S.,  563. 
Epistles,  Catholic,  141  if. 

Forged,  140. 

of  the  Cesarean  Imprisonment,  114  ff. 

Pauline,  73  ff. 
Erasmian  Editions,  401. 
Erasmo-Stephanic  Family  (Editions),  403. 
Erasmus,  331,  400,  469,  543. 
Ernesti,  J.  A.,  572. 
Errors  of  the  Ear,  364. 

of  the  Eye,  364. 
Espence,  C.  d',  551. 
Essenism,  Relation  to  Christianity,  25« 
Ess,  L.  yan,  418. 
Esther,  Book  of,  319. 
Esthonian  Version,  489. 
Est,  W.,  552. 
Ethiopic  Canon,  326. 

Versions,  431. 
Eucherius,  517,  525. 
Eugene  IV.,  331. 
Eusebius,  313  f.,  .385,  434,  513. 
Euthalius,  328,  377,  383,  385. 
Ewald,  H.,  593. 
Exegesis,  Alexandrian,  504. 

Apocalyptic,  561. 

Calyinif-tic,  549  f. 

Catholic,  551. 

History  of,  501  ff. 

of  the  Apostles,  505. 

of  the  Jews,  503  f.,  5.39. 

of  the  Reformers,  544  ff. 
Exposition  of  the  O.  T.,  502. 
Extracts,  526. 
Ezra,  R.  Abr.  Aben,  of  Toledo,  539. 

Faber  Stapulensis,  J.  (Le  ¥evre),  473,  480, 

543. 
Fathers,  Quotations  in,  294,  394. 
Fehr,  S.  B.,  561. 
Fein,  G.  F.,  561. 
Felix,  113.. 
Fell,  J.,  407. 
Ferus,  J.,  551. 
Fichte,  J.  G.,  .577. 
Ficinus,  Marsilius,  542. 


INDEX, 


631 


Finnish  Version,  489. 
Fischer,  C,  595. 
Fitzner,  H.,  561. 
Flacius,  M.,  54G,  547,  548. 
Flatt,  J.  F.,  582. 
Fleck,  594. 
Fleming,  Robt.,  561. 
Flemish  Version,  488. 
Florence,  Council  of,  325. 
Floras  Magister,  526. 
Forgeries,  361  f. 
Formula  Concordise,  332,  546. 

Consensus  Helv.,  339. 
Fosse?,  Du,  562. 
Franke,  A.  H.,  558. 
Frantz,  A.,  578. 
Frantz,  W.,  553. 
Freethinkers,  341. 
French  Exegesis,  598. 

Theology,  348. 

Versions,  465  f.,  468,  473  f.,  480,  486, 
488,  497  ff . 
Freudentheil,  W.  N.,  579. 
Friedlieb,  J.  H.,  418. 
Fritzsche,  C.  F.,  592. 
Fritzsche,  C.  F.  A.,  592. 
Fritzsche,  0.  F.,  592,  593. 
Froben,  John,  400. 
Frommann,  C.,  587. 
Frtireisen,  J.  L.,  560. 

Gabler,  J.  G.,  579. 

Gabler,  .J.  P.,  580,  594. 

Gaelic  Version,  489. 

Gagnev,  J.,  551. 

Gaillard,  F.,  419. 

Gail,  J.  B.,  419. 

Galatian  Churches,  83  f. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  83  ff. 

Gallic  Confession,  332. 

Gasparin,  A.  de,  348. 

Gaussen,  L.,  348. 

Gehringer,  J.,  418. 

Geier,  M.,  555. 

Gelasii  Decretum,  324. 

Genevan  Versions,  474,  486. 

George  of  Trapezus,  530. 

Georgian  Version,  433,  491. 

Gerbert,  M.,  552. 

Gerhard,  J.,  334,  339,  553,  555. 

Gerhard  v.  Maestricht,  407. 

Gerhauser,  J.  B.,  595. 

Gerken,  W.  F.,  584. 

German  Versions,  463  ff.,  469  ff.,  472,  479, 

483,  487,  488,  497  ff. 
Germar,  F.  H.,  583. 
Gerson,  541. 
Gesenius,  594. 
Glagolitic  Character,  446. 
Glaire,  J.  B.,  337. 
Glass,  S.,  553,  555. 
Glosses,  359,  529. 
Glossographers,  530. 
Gnosis,  72,  115  f.,  129. 
Gnostic  Acts,  261. 

Apocalypses,  262. 

Canon  ,'291  f. 

Gospels,  245  f.,  262. 
Gnosticism,  72,  244,  290,  508. 


Godeau,  A.,  562. 
Godet,  F.,  598. 
Gomar,  F.,  555. 
Goodwin,  Th.,  566. 
Gospel  of  Barnabas,  263. 

of  John,  213  ff. 

of  John,  Additions  to,  239. 

of  Luke,  201  ff. 

of  Marcion,  246. 

of  Mark,  187,  189  f. 

of  Mark,  Additions  to,  240. 

of  Nicodemus,  259. 

of  Peter,  199. 

of  the  Hebrews,  198. 
Gospels,  171  ff.,  178. 

Apocryphal,  262  ff. 

Gnostic,  245  f.,  262. 

of  the  Childhood,  265. 

Synoptic,  179  ff. 
Gothic  "V'ersion,  444  f. 
Gotze,  G.  H.,  554. 
Gi'.ze,  J.  M.,  575,  581. 
Graf,  C.  H.,  593. 
Grammatical  Interpretation,  547. 
Grammatico-Historical  Interpretation,  579. 
Grandpierre,  J.  H.,  598. 
Tpa^^,  285,  303. 
Gratz,  P.  A.,  418,  595. 
Greek  Church,  Canon  of,  338. 

Versions  by,  490. 
Gregory  Barhebraeus,  329. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  320,  516. 

of  Nyssa,  516. 
Gregory  Thaumaturgns,  513. 
Gregory  the  Great,  328,  455,  517,  525. 
Gregory  VII.,  447. 
Gregory  XVI.,  499. 
Greenlandic  Version,  492. 
Grenier-Fajal,  O.  de,  348. 
Gretser,  J.,  552. 
Griesbach,  J.  J.,  412,  579. 
Grimm,  D.  C,  .565. 
Grimm,  W.,  346,  591,  593. 
Gros,  N.  le,  595. 
Grotius,  H.,  563. 

Grusinic  Version  (Georgian),  433,491. 
Guibert  of  Nogent,  535. 
Guilliaud,  C,  551. 
Giintner,  G.  J.  B.,  595. 
Gurike,  H.  E.  F.,  588. 
Giirtler,  N.,  557. 
Guyars  des  Moulins,  466,  468. 
Guyon,  Madame,  560. 

Haag,  F.,  348. 

Hafenreffer,  M..  339. 

Hagen,  F.  W.,  578. 

Hahn,  A.,  414,  577,  588. 

Haldane,  E.,  597. 

Harclean  Version  (Syriac),  428. 

Hardouin,  J.,  552. 

Harless,  G.  A.,  588,  591. 

Harmonies  of  the  Gospels,  179. 

Harmonistic  Conformation,  358. 

Hartmann,  M.,  590. 

Hartsoeker,  C,  563. 

Harwood,  E.,  409. 

Hase,  346. 

Hassler,  L.  A.,  595. 


632 


INDEX. 


Hauff,  C.  v.,  583. 
Hiiveniick,  H.  A.  C,  588,  589. 
Haj-mann,  C.  (j.,  565. 
Haymo  of  Ilalberstadt,  328,  528. 
Hebenstreit,  C.  \V.,  577. 
Hebraisms,  40. 
Hebrew  Archreolosy,  566. 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  151  ft.,  302,  308,  312 f., 
322,  328. 
Gospel  of,  198. 
Hebrew  Versions,  493. 
Hegel,  590,  591,  594. 
Hesesippus,  294  f. 
Heidegger,  J.  H.,  555. 
Heinrichs,  J.  H.,  580. 
Heinsius,  D.,  565. 
Heliand,  403. 
Hellenism,  41,  44  ff.,  504. 
Hellenistic  Greek,  42  ff. 
Helmont,  Van,  561. 
Helvetic  Confession,  I.,  332,  546. 
Helvetic  Confession,  II.,  332,  333,  335,  546. 
Hemminij,  N.,  548. 
HengeJ,  \V.  A.  van,  597. 
Hengstenberg,  E.  VV.,  588  ff. 
Henke,  E.,  578. 
Henke,  H.  P.  C,  346,  576. 
Henneberg,  J.  V.,  576. 
Henry,  Matthew,  597. 
Hensler,  C.  G.,  576. 
Heracleon,  508. 
Herder,  J.  G.,  578. 
Herental,  Peter  of,  535. 
Heretics,  291  f. 
Hernias,  275,  294,  317. 

'EpnT)i'evTri';,  49. 

Herv<5  of  Mans,  535. 
Hess,  J.  J.,  582,  584. 
Hesychius,  306,  307,  530. 
Hetzer,  L.,  472. 
Heubner,  H.  L.,  582. 
Heumann,  C.  A.,  568. 
Heunisch,  C,  501. 
Heydenreich,  A.  L.  C,  588. 
Hezel,  W.  V.,  576. 
Hilary  of  Pictavium,  322. 
Hinckelmann,  A.,  554. 
Hindu  Versions,  492,  495. 
Hindustani  Version,  492. 
Hippo,  Council  of,  324. 
Hippolytus,  292,  313,  513. 
Hirschgartner,  A .,  590. 
Historical  Bibles,  401,  464  f. 

Exegesis,  518  ff. 

Literature,  103  ff. 
Hlstorv  of  Exegesis,  501  fi. 

of  the  Canon,  281  ff. 

of  the  Literature,  24  ff. 

of  the  Text,  351  ff. 

of  tiie  Versions,  421  ff. 
Hoe,  M.,  501. 
Hoeven,  Van  d.,  597. 
Hofacker,  L.,  584. 
Hoffmann,  W.,  59L 
Hofmann,  C.  G.,  570. 
Hofmann,  .L  C.  C,  346,  590. 
Holbach,  Von,  575. 
Holcott,  Robert,  535. 
Holden,  G.,  597. 


Homilies,  Clementine,  254  ff. 
Honiffioteleuton,  364. 
Homologoumena,  314. 
Hi.pfner,  E.  F.,  584. 
Horch,  J.  H.,  559. 
Home,  T.  H.,  347,  597. 
Horst,  G.  C,  576. 
Hrabanus  Maurus,  328,  528. 
Hug,  J.  L.,  21,  307,  412,  591,  595. 
Hugo  of  St.  Caro,  329,  380,  529. 
Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  329,  535. 
Humanists,  390,  543. 
Hundeshagen,  C.  B.,  593. 
Hunnius,  A.,  555. 
Hupfeld,  H.,  590,  593. 
Hurler,  G.  L.,  584. 
Huss,  John,  541. 
Huther,  J.  E.,  587. 
Hutter,  E.,  405. 
Hymns,  102. 
Hystaspes,  274. 

Icelandic  Versions,  472,  485. 

Ignatius,  287,  289. 

Iken,  C,  500. 

Illumination,  The,  575. 

Illyrian  Version,  496. 

Immer,  A.,  594. 

Indian  Versions,  East,  492,  495. 

Indian  Versions,  N.  American,  495. 

Inner  Mission,  349. 

Innocent  I.,  324. 

Innocent  III.,  405. 

Inscriptions,  383. 

Inspiration,  285. 

Instrumentum,  300,  303. 

Interchanges  of  Svnonvms,  364. 

Irena-us,  292,  293,  297  ff.,  359,  302,  422,  508, 

514  f. 
Irish  Version,  489. 
Isaac,  R.  Solomon,  539. 
Isidore  of  Pclusium,  516. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  319,  328,  452,  455,  517, 

527. 
Islam,  Rise  of,  435  f. 
Itacism,  .363,  371. 
Itala,  452. 
Italian  Versions,  467  f.,  476,  478,  488. 

Jahn,  J.,  595. 
Jallaguior,  P.,  348. 
James,  56. 

Epistle  of,  143  ff..  .308,  312,  319. 

King,  Version,  485. 

Protevangelimn  of,  265. 
Jansenists,  562. 
Jansenist  Versions,  488. 
Jerome,  319,   323,  358,  359,  365,  367,  450, 

454,  517,  522. 
Jerusalem,  Council  of,  65. 

Version  (Syriac),  429. 
Jesaioe  Visio,  274. 
Jesuits,  5.52. 
Jesus  Christ,  24  ff. 

Method  of  Teaching,  27. 
Jewish  Christian  Gospels,  197  ff. 

Christian  Literature,  252  ff. 

Christianity,  52  ff. 

Exegesis,  503,  539. 


INDEX. 


633 


Jewish  Versions,  493. 
Jews  in  tlie  Middle  Ages,  539. 
Joachim  of  Floris,  536. 
John,  Apocalypse  of,  156  ff. 

Disciples  of,  222. 

Epistles  of,  227  ff.,  312. 

Gospel  of,  213  ft". 

Gospel  of.  Additions  to,  239. 

of  Damascus,  328.  526. 

of  Salisbuiy,  329,  533. 

the  Apostle,  161,  226. 

the  Presbyter,  161. 
John  VIII.,  447. 
Jonas,  Justus,  548. 
Judaism,  70. 

Jude,  Epistle  of,  233,  312,  319. 
Julian  of  Eclanum,  521. 
Julius  Africanus,  518. 
Jung-Stilling,  J.  H.,  584. 
Junilius,  328. 
Justi,  C.  W.,  578. 
Justin  Martvr,  293,  294,  506. 

Gospels  of,  199. 
Juynboll,  597. 

Kahnis,  346. 

Kaiser,  G.  P.  C,  580,  583. 

Kanne,  J.  A.,  589. 

Kant,  Imm.,  57G,  577. 

Karkaphentian  Version,  427. 

Kauffer,  J.  E.  R.,  579. 

Kavser,  A.,  590. 

Keil,  C.  A.  G.,  579. 

Keil,  C.  F.,  588. 

Kern,  F.  H.,  591,  593. 

Kienlen,  H.  W.,  598. 

Kimchi,  R.  David,  539. 

King  James'  Version  (English),  485. 

Kirchmaier,  G.  W.,  565. 

Kistemaker,  J.  H.,  595. 

Klaiber,  591. 

Klee,  H.,  595. 

Klein,  J.  G.,  584. 

Kleuker,  J.  F.,  580. 

Kliefoth,  Th.,  588. 

Knapp,  G.  C.,  414,  582. 

Koifrj,   42  f . 

Kollner,  E.,  593. 
Koppe,  J.  B.,  410,  580. 
Koran,  440. 

Apocryphal  Legends  in,  263. 
Krause,  J.  F.,  580. 
Krist,  463. 
Kromayer,  M.,  561. 
Krummacher,  F.  W.,  589. 
Krummacher,  G.  D.,  589. 
Kuhn,  591. 
Kiiliniil,  C.  G.,  572. 
Kurtz,  J.  H.,  588,  589. 
Kyrillos  Lukaris,  338. 

Lachmann,  C,  416. 
Lactantius,  -303,  313. 
Lambert,  F.,  549. 
Lampe,  F.  A.,  555. 
Lanfranc,  527. 
Lang,  W.  T.,  582. 
Lange,  C.  H.,  565. 
Lange,  J.,  558. 


Lange,  J.  P.,  589. 

Lange,  S.  G.,  580. 

Langsdorff,  C.  C.  v.,  575. 

Language  of  the  Apostles,  40  ff. 

Laodicea,  Council  of,  321. 

Laodicean  Canon,  321. 

Laodiceans,  Epistle  to,  271,  329. 

Laplandic  Version,  489. 

Lasinsky,  F.  H.  C,  577. 

Latin  Canon,  322  ff. 

Latin  Versions,  449  ff. 

Latinisms,  44. 

Laurentius  Valla,  542. 

Le  Buy,  J.,  561. 

Le  Clerc,  J.  (Clericus),  563. 

Lectionaries,  384. 

Lee,  S.,  597. 

Le  Fevre,  J.,  473,  480,  543. 

Le  Gros,  N.,  595. 

Leigh,  E.,  565. 

Lencke,  F.,  584. 

Lentulus,  259. 

Leo  Allatius,  338. 

Leo  XII.,  499. 

Leontius  of  Byzantium,  320,  328. 

Less,  G.,  581. 

Lessing,  G.  E.,  341,  573. 

Lettish  Version,  489. 

Leusden,  J.,  406. 

Leutwein,  C.  F.,  584. 

Leydekker,  W.,  566. 

Leyser,  P.,  555. 

Ligatures.  375. 

Lightfoot,  J.,  566. 

Li'lienthal,  T.  C,  581. 

Limborch,  Ph.  y.,  563. 

Lindemann,  F.  H.,  578. 

Lisco,  F.  G.,  589. 

Literature,  History  of  the,  24  £f. 

Lithuanian  Version,  489. 

Liturgical  Additions,  362. 

Liturgies,  Apostolic,  276. 

Local  Coloring,  365. 

Loch,  v.,  416. 

Locke,  John,  569. 

Loffler,  J.  F.  C,  576. 

Lohnis,  J.  M.  A.,  595. 

Lombard,  Peter,  529. 

London  Polyglot,  407. 

Loscher,  V.  E.,  554,  560. 

Liiseke,  C.  A.,  561. 

Low-German  Versions,  472. 

Lucar,  338. 

Lucas,  F.,  552. 

Lucas,  J.  C,  561. 

Lucian,  366,  367. 

Liicke,  C.  G.  F.,  587. 

Luke,  201  ff.,  211. 

Gospel  of,  201  ff. 
Lund,  J.,  566. 
Lusitanian  Versions,  489. 
Luthardt,  C.  E.,  588. 
Luther,  332,  333,  334,  470  f.,  483,  547  f. 
Lutheran  Theologians,  553  f.,  567  £.,  588. 
Lutteroth,  H.,  598. 
Lutz,  J.  L.  S.,  587. 
Lyra,  Nicolas  of,  329,  541. 

Mace,  409. 


634 


INDEX. 


Mack,  591,  595. 
Maestriclit,  Gerhard  of,  407. 
Maier,  A.,  595. 
Magdeburg  Centuries,  333. 
Magister,  Thomas,  530. 
Magyar  Versions,  4(i7,  489. 
Mai,  J.  H.,  5G0. 
Major,  S.,  555. 
Majus,  J.  H.,  554. 
Malay  Versions,  492,  495. 
Maldonato,  J.,  552. 
Maltese  Version,  489. 
Mammotrectus,  541. 
Manichreans,  327. 

Manuscripts,  Character  in  ■which  written, 
375. 
Description,  392. 
Form,  374. 
Material,  373. 
Punctuation,  376  ff. 
Manx  Version,  489. 
Marchesini,  J.,  541. 
Marcion,  246,  362,  508. 
Marcion's  Canon,  291. 
Marck,  J.,  557,  561. 
Mariana,  J.,  552. 
Mark,  Gospel  of,  187,  189  ff. 
Mark,  Gospel  of.  Additions  to,  240. 
Marlorat,  A.,  549. 
Marsilius  Ficinus,  542. 
Martianay,  J.,  552. 
Martin,  D.,  486. 
Masch,  409. 
Matthrei,  C.  F.,  413. 
Matthxi,  F.  A.  L.,  578. 
Matthaii,  G.  C.  R.,  590. 
Matthew,  Gospel  of,  186,  191  ff. 
Matthies,  C.  S.,  591. 
Mayer,  F.  G.,  595. 
Mediaeval  Exegesis,  522  ff. 
Meier,  F.  C,  593. 
Melanchthon,  Ph.,  334,  547  f. 
Melito,  294. 

Memphitic  Version,  430. 
Mendpeans,  222. 

Mendoza,  A.  de  Escobar  v,  552. 
Menken,  G.,  589. 
Menochius,  J.  St.,  552. 
Menzer,  C,  339. 
Mesrob,  432. 

Messerschmid,  J.  C,  565. 
Messianic  Expectations,  29,  52,  155. 
Mestral,  A.de,  598. 

Methodicus,  446. 

Methodius,  312,  513. 

Method  of  Jesus'  Teaching,  27. 

Metrophanes  Kritopoulos,  338. 

Meyer,  G.  W.,  577,  579. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W..  592. 

Meyer,  J.  F.  v.,  584. 

Merer,  L.,  564. 

Michaelis,  C.  B.,  559,  560. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  18,  568,  570. 

Michaelis,  J.  H.,  559. 

Middle  High-German  Versions,  464,  469. 

Mill,  J.,  407. 

Mirandula,  Picus  de,  542. 

Mirus,  A.  E.,  553. 

Missions,  Ancient,  35. 


Missions,  Modern,  492. 

Mixed  Editions,  405. 

Modern  Greek  Versions,  490. 

Modern  Versions,  460  ff. 

Mohammedanism,  435  f. 

Moldavian  Version,  490. 

Moldenhawer,  406. 

Molin,  G.  N.,  577. 

Monneron,  598. 

Monod,  A.,  598. 

Monsperger,  J.  J.,  595. 

Montanus,  B.  A.,  566. 

Morus,  S.  F.  N.,  572. 

Moses  of  Chorene,  432. 

Mosheim,  J.  L.  von,  568. 

Mothe-Guyon,  J.  M.  Bouvi^res  de  la,  562. 

Midler,  J.,  591. 

Miinthe,  C.  F.,  565. 

Muralt,  E.  von,  416. 

Muratorian  Canon,  302,  310. 

Musculus,  W.  F.,  335,  549. 

Mystical  Exposition,  509  ff. 

Mystics,  535  f.,  584. 

Myths,  580,  591. 

Nadir  Shah,  441. 

Napier,  J.,  561. 

Neander,  A.,  587,  591. 

Nepos,  312. 

Nestorians,  327,  362,  427. 

Neumann,  W.,  588. 

New  Testament  Pseudepigrapha,  247  ff. 

Newton,  B.  W.,  584. 

Newton,  Isaac,  561. 

Nicaja,  Council  of,  328. 

Nicephorus  Callisti,  329. 

Nicephorus  of  Constantinople,   319,  328, 

531. 
Nicetas,  531. 

Nicodemus,  Gospel  of,  259. 
Nicolai,  F.,  575. 
Nicolas,  M.,  598. 
Nicolas  of  Lyra,  329,  541. 
Nigrinus,  G.',  561. 
Nitzsch,  346. 
Noachian  Precepts,  66. 
Nork,  F.,  575. 
Nosselt,  J.  A.,  572,  577. 
Nd^a,  311,  314. 
Notker  Labeo,  328,  463. 
Novatians,  313,  327. 

Oberlin,  H.  G.,  584. 
Observationes  Philologicae,  565. 
Occidental  Text,  370. 
CEcolampadius,  J.,  333,  335,  549. 
Qilcumenius,  531. 
Odo  of  Clugny,  526. 
Oegger,  584. 

Old  Catholic  Movement,  337. 
Old  High-German  Versions,  463. 
Old  Testament,  281  f . 
Olearius,  G.,  555. 
Olearius,  J.,  553,  560. 
Olivetan,  Pierre  Robert,  474. 
Olshausen,  H.,  589. 
Oltramare,  H.,  598. 
Olympiodorus,  527. 
Ophites,  292. 


INDEX. 


635 


Order  of  the  N".  T.  Books,  302. 

Oriental  Versions,  42U  ff. 

Origen,  311,  318,  305,  3GG,  367,  511  fi. 

Oertel,  E.  F.  C,  578. 

Osiander,  J.  E.,  582,  591. 

Osterwald,  J.  F.,  48G. 

Otfried,  463. 

Outrein,  J.  d',  557. 

Paleography,  352  f.,  372  S. 
Palairet,  E.,  565. 
Palestinian  Language,  40. 
Palimpsests,  373. 
Palm,  J.  H.  van  der,  597. 
Palmer,  E.,  419. 
Pamphilus,  3G5,  513. 
Pantienus,  422,  510. 
Papias,  175,  186,  187,  287. 
Papj'rus,  353,  373. 
Pareau,  J.  H.,  582,  597. 
Pareau,  L.  G.,  597. 
Parens,  D.,  555. 
Paris  Polyglot,  407. 
Pastoral  Epistles,  88  ff.,  126  £E. 
Paterius  of  Brescia,  526. 
Patres  Apostolici,  285  ff. 
Patriarchs,  Twelve,  257. 
Patristic  Exegesis,  509  ff. 
Patrizzi,  F.  X.,  419. 
Paul,  Death,  134  f. 

Epistles,  73  ff. 

Imprisonment,  112  ff. 

Journeys,  78  ff . 

Journey  to  Rome,  125. 

Last  Davs,  134. 

Life,  58  "ff. 

Pseudepigrapha,  267,  271. 

Pupils,  68. 

Residence  at  Ephesus,  87. 

Results  of  his  Teaching,  135. 

Theolog}',  59  ff. 
Paulus  Diaconus,  528. 
Paulus,  H.  E.  G.,  576,  577. 
Paulus  of  Burgos,  541. 
Peirce,  J.,  509. 
Pelagius,  521. 
Pellicanus,  C,  549. 
Pelt,  L.,  587. 
Penzenkufier,  C.  W.,  577. 
Perez,  J.,  of  Valencia,  535. 
Pericopes,  382  ff. 
Persian  Versions,  441,  495. 
Peshito,  308,  326,  427. 
Petau,  D.,  566. 
Peter,  56,  149. 

Acts  of,  253  ff. 

Apocalypse  of,  253. 

First  Epistle,  147  ff. 

Gospel  of,  177,  199. 

Kijpuy/ita,  253. 

Peter  of  Clugny,  329. 
Peter  of  Herental,  535. 
Petersen,  J.  E.,  561. 
Petersen,  J.  W.,  561. 
Petrus  Monachus,  330. 
Peucer,  D.,  565. 
Pfaff,  C.  M.,  570. 
Pfeiffer,  A.,  340,  553. 
Pfeiffer,  I.  E.,  581. 


Pharisaism,  Relation  to  Christianity,  25. 

Pharmakides,  Theoklitos,  531. 

Phavorinus,  530. 

Philadelphus,  T.,  569. 

Philastrius,  322. 

Philemon,  Epistle  to,  124. 

Philippi,  F.  A.,  588. 

Philippians,  Epistle  to,  131  ff. 

Philology,  Biblical,  565. 

Philology,  N.  T.,  47,  592. 

Philoxenian  Version  (Sj'riac),  428. 

Photius  of  Constantinople,  527. 

Picus  de  Mirandula,  542. 

Piedmontese  Version,  496. 

Pierius,  365,  513. 

Pietists,  558  f.,  562. 

Pilati  Acta,  258  f . 

Pin,  L.  E.  du,  337. 

Piscator,  J.,  555. 

Pius  VII.,  499. 

Pius  VIII.,  499. 

Pius  IX.,  499. 

PlaciBus,  340. 

Planck,  H.,  577. 

Plantine  Family  (Editions),  403. 

Poetry,  Earlv  Christian,  162. 

Polish  Versions,  467,  477  f. 

Polycarp,  287. 

Polyglot,  Antwerp,  403. 

Complutensian,  399. 

London,  407. 

Paris,  407. 
Polynesian  Versions,  495. 
Poole,  M.,  567. 
Porschberger,  C,  565. 
Port  Royal  Version  (French),  488. 
Portuguese  Versions,  476,  488. 
PostiUije,  528  f. 
Pott,  D.,  575. 
Pott,  D.  J.,  580. 
Prajdicatio  Petri,  253. 
Preaching  of  Jesus,  26. 

of  the  Gospel,  36  ff. 
Pre-Jeromic  Latin  Versions,  453. 
Presbyters,  37. 
Pressens^,  E.  de,  598. 
Prideaux,  H.,  566. 
Pritz,  409. 

Procopius  of  Gaza,  527. 
Propaganda,  491. 
Prophecies,  589  ff. 
Prophets,  37. 
Proselytes,  41,  66. 
Prosper  Aquitanus,  526. 
Protevangalia,  173,  181,  183. 
Proto-Mark,  187. 
Proto-Matthew,  186. 
Przipcow,  S.,  556. 

Pseudepigrapha  of  the  N.  T.,  247  ff.,  293. 
Pseudo-Clementines,  254  ff. 
Ptolemffius,  245,  508. 
Public  Readings,  282  ff. 
Pupils  of  Paul,  68. 
Purists,  47. 
Pyle,  Th.,  509. 

Quaternions,  374. 
Quenstedt,  340. 
Quesnel,  P.,  562. 


636 


INDEX. 


Quinet,  E.,  348. 
Quotations,  2'J4,  394. 

Rabanus  Maiinis,  328,  528. 
Rabbinical  Exegesis,  503. 
Radbert,  Paschasius,  528. 
Radulf  of  Flavignv,  535. 
Rambach,  J.  J.,  558,  559. 
Ranolder,  J.,  595. 
Raplielius,  G.,  565. 
Rashi,  539. 

Rationalism,  576,  579  f. 
Ratze,  J.  G.,  587. 
Rail,  J.  W.,  570. 
Readings,  Public,  281  &. 
Recensions,  365  f. 
Reckenberger,  J.  L.,  560. 
Recognitions  (Clementine),  254  f. 
Redslob,  G.  M.,  590. 
Reformers,  Canon  of,  332  ff. 

Exegesis  of,  544  £f. 
Reiche,  J.  G.,  593. 
Reichel,  V.,  595. 
Reimar,  H.  S.,  575. 
Reinerius,  330. 
Reinhard,  F.  V.,  346,  582. 
Reinke,  L.,  595. 
Reithmavr,  F.  X.,  418. 
Reland,  H.,  506. 
Remigius  of  Aiixerre,  528. 
Renaissance,  549  f. 
Renan,  E.,  598. 
Restoration,  585. 
Reuss,  J.  F.,  582. 
Revelation  of  John,  156  ff. 
Reville,  A.,  598. 
Revival  of  Learning,  538  ff. 
Rhffito-Romance  Versions,  489. 
Rheinwald,  F.  H.,  587. 
Rhemish  Version  (English),  478. 
Rhyme-Bibles,  461. 
Richard  of  St.  Victor,  329,  535. 
Rilliet,  A.,  419,  598. 
Robinson,  H.,  597. 
Roell,  H.  A.,  555. 
Roman  Canon,  309. 

Church,  106. 

Imprisonment  (of  Paul),  125  ff. 
Romans,  Epistle  to,  107  ff. 
Rome,  Condition  of,  in  Apostolic  Age,  106. 
Roorda,  T.,  597. 
Roos,  M.  F.,  561,  589. 
Rciper,  F.  L.,  576. 
Rosenmiiller,  E.  F.  C,  572. 
Rosenmiiller,  J.  G.,  572,  577. 
Rossi,  J.  B.  de,  595. 
Rougemont,  F.  de,  584,  598. 
Royal  Version  (English),  485. 
Riickert,  L.  I.,  593. 
Rudelbach,  A.  G.,  588. 
Rufinus,  322,  513. 
Riihle  von  Lilienstern,  A.  F.,  584. 
Rullman,  L.  C,  576. 
Ruprecht  of  Deutz,  533. 
Russian  Versions,  490,  496. 

Sa,  E.,  552. 

Sack,  591. 

Sacy,  Le  Maistre  de,  488,  562. 


Sadduceeism,  Relation  to  Christianity,  25. 

Sadolet,  J.,  551. 

Sahidic  Version,  430. 

Sakhlin,  G.  R.,  565. 

Salisbury,  John  of,  329,  533. 

Salmero,  A.,  552. 

Salzmann,  R.,  584. 

Sand,  C,  556. 

Sander,  F.,  584. 

Sardinoux,  A.,  598. 

Scaliger,  J.,  565,  566. 

Scandinavian  Tlieology,  347. 

Schaller,  J.,  591. 

Schelling,  F.  W.  J.,  580. 

Schenkel,  594. 

Scherer,  E.,  348,  598. 

Scherer,  J.  L.  W.,  576. 

Scheuchzer,  J.  J.,  566. 

Schickard,  W.,  506. 

Schirmer,  A.  G.  F.,  594. 

Schleiermacher,  346,  587. 

Schleusner,  J.  F.,  580. 

Schlichting,  J.,  556. 

Schmid,  C.  C.  E.,  555,  594. 

Schmid,  C  F..  340. 

Schmidt,  S.,  554,  555,  577. 

Schmitter,  A.,  595. 

Schnappinger,  B.  M.,  595. 

Schneider,  J.  W.,  555. 

Scholasticism,  533  f. 

Scholia,  380,  530. 

Scholtz,  H.,  565. 

Scholz,  J.  M.  A.,  415. 

Schott,  H.  A.,  412,  418,  580. 

Schott,  Th.,  588. 

Schottgen,  C,  566. 

Schultens,  A.,  565. 

Schulthess,  J.,  576. 

Schulz,  D.,  580. 

Schwarz,  F.  H.  C,  582. 

Schwarz,  F.  I.,  581. 

Schwarzel,  C,  595. 

Scott,  Th.,  597. 

Scribes,  351. 

Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.,  419. 

Sedulius,  527. 

Seelen,  J.  H.  a,  565. 

Seemiller,  S.,  595. 

Seidel,  C.  T.,  560. 

Seller,  G.  F.,  .582. 

Seitz,  J.  C,  561. 

Seklen.  J.,  566. 

Selnekker,  N.,  555. 

Semi-Bezan  Editions,  404. 

Semler,  J.  S.,  18,  342,  411,  573  f.,  576. 

Semler,  M.  F.,  584. 

Seneca,  Correspondence  of  Paul  and,  273. 

Septuagint,  45,  283. 

Serarius,  N.,  552. 

Serre,  De  la,  341. 

Shepherd  of  Hennas,  275,  294. 

Sibvlline  Oracles,  274. 

Sinion,  R.,  16,  406,  488. 

Simon  the  Sorcerer,  71,  72. 

Singhalese  Version,  492. 

Sixtine  Vulgate,  482. 

Sixtus  Senensis,  16,  337. 

Slavic  Versions,  446  f.,  477,  488. 

Sociniaus,  556. 


INDEX. 


637 


Sorbonne,  331. 

Spanheim,  F.,  566. 

Spanisli  Versions.  467  f.,  476,  489. 

Speaker's  Bible,  The,  597. 

Spencer,  J.,  566. 

Spener,  P.  J.,  558  f. 

Spinoza,  B.,  23,  341,  564. 

Starli,  C.  L.  W.,  583. 

Starke,  C,  567. 

Staudlin,  C.  F.,  583. 

Stauss,  A.  C,  577. 

St.  Caro,  Hugo  of,  329,  529. 

Steeg,  J.,  598. 

Steiger,  W.,  588. 

Stein,  Corn,  von  (a  Lapide),  552. 

Stein,  C.  W.,  583. 

Stephan,  E.,  410. 

Stephanie  Family,  403. 

Stephano-Bezan  Family,  405. 

Stephano-PIantine  Family,  405. 

Stephen,  33  ff. 

Stephens,  Henry,  402  f. 

Stephens,  Robert,  387,  402. 

Steudel,  J.  C.  F.,  582,  589,  591. 

Stichometrv,  377. 

Stier,  R.,  589. 

St.  Louis,  463. 

Stolz,  J.  J.,  576. 

Storr,  G.  C,  582. 

Strabo,  Walafrid,  529. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  591. 

Strigel,  v.,  548. 

Stuart,  Moses,  597. 

Study  of  the  Classics,  542. 

St.  Victor,  Hugo  of,  329,  535. 

St.  Victor,  Richard  of,  329,  535. 

Subscriptions,  389. 

Subsidia  Critica,  391. 

Suidas,  530. 

Sumner,  J.  B.,  597. 

Superscriptions,  388. 

Sweden borg,  Em.,  341,  584. 

Swedish  Versions,  472,  485,  487. 

Swiss  Versions,  472,  485. 

Symbolum  Apostolicum,  279. 

Synagogue  Readings,  282. 

^vva^apla,  384. 

Synod  of  .Jerusalem,  65. 
Synoptic  Gospels,  179  ff. 
Syriac  Canon,  308. 

Versions,  426  ff.,  491. 
Syro-Chaldaic  Dialect,  40. 

Tamil  Version,  492. 

Tatar  Versions,   495. 

Tatian,  199,  292,  463. 

Teller,  W.  A.,  576. 

Tertullian,  293,  297  ff.,  303,  362,  514  f. 

Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  257. 

Testamentum,  303. 

Text,  History  of,  351  ff. 

Textual  Criticism,  395  ff. 

Works  on,  351,  395. 
Textus  Receptus,  403  ff. 
Thebaic  Version,  430. 
Theile,  C.  G.  W.,  418,  591,  592. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  320,  518,  521. 
Theodoret,  434,  509,  520  f. 
Theognostus,  513. 


Theological  Exegesis,  586. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  297  f. 
Theophylact,  531. 
Thessalonians,  Epistle  to,  79  ff. 
Thiess,  J.  0.,  576. 
Tholuck,  A.,  588  f.,  591. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  533. 
Thomas,  L.,  598. 
Thomas  Magister,  530. 
Thube,  C.  G.,  561. 
Thurn,  W.  C,  576. 
Til,  S.  van,  557. 
Timothy,  First  Epistle  to,  90  fT. 

Second  Epistle  to,  126  ff. 
Tinius,  J.  G.,  578,  584. 
Tirinus,  J.,  552. 
Tischendorf,  C,  392,  417. 
Titelmann,  F.,  551. 
Titles,  388. 
TtVAot,  386. 
Tittmann,  C.  C,  572. 
Tittmann,  J.  A.  H.,  414. 
Titus,  Epistle  to,  88  ff. 
Tobler,  J.,  568. 
Toinard,  N.,  409. 
Toland,  341. 
Tollner,  J.  G.,  570. 
Tongues,  Gift  of,  97. 
Ttinnien,  J.  H.,  561. 
Tossanus,  D.,  .555. 
Tradition,  242,  515. 

Gospel,  163  ff. 
Traditores,  313. 
Translations,  421  ff, 

(Criticism),  393. 
Transpositions,  364. 
Tregelles,  S.  P.,  419. 
Trent,  Council  of,  336,  482,  552. 
Trigland,  J.,  566. 
Trollope,  W.,  597. 
Trychonius,  517. 
Tiibingen  School,  Earlier,  582. 

Later,  19,  344. 
Turkish  Versions,  492,  495, 
Turrecremata,  Job.  de,  535. 
Turreiin,  J.  A.,  568,  573. 
Twesten,  346. 
Tychsen,  T.  C,  580. 
Typology,  505,  550,  570,  589. 

Ulfilas,  444. 
Ullmann,  C,  587,  591. 
Umbreit,  F.  W,  C,  578,  587. 
Uncials,  375. 
Ungerer,  C.  G.,  582. 
Unterkircher,  C.,  595. 
Ussher,  J.,  566. 
Usteri,  L.,  587,  591. 

Vaisse,  J.  L.,  584. 
Valckenaer,  L.  C,  597. 
Valentinus,  245,  292,  362. 
Valla,  Laurentius,  542. 
Valpy,  E.,  419,  597. 
Van  Alphen,  H.,  570. 
Van  der  Hoeven,  597. 
Van  der  Palm,  597. 
Van  Ess,  L.,  418. 
Van  Helmout,  561. 


638 


INDEX. 


Van  Hengel,  W.  A.,  597. 
Van  Til,  S.,  557. 
Van  Voorst,  J.,  597. 
Variants,  355  ff. 
Vatablus,  F.,  551. 
Vater,  J.  S.,  414. 
Vatke,  W.,  591. 
Venturini,  C,  575. 
Vermilius,  P.,  332. 
Verses,  387. 
Versions  (Criticism),  393. 

Afghan,  495. 

African  Dialects,  495. 

Albanian,  496. 

Amharic,  442. 

Anglo-Saxon,  462. 

Arabic,  437  ff.,  491. 

Armenian,  432,  491,  495. 

Armorican,  489,  496. 

Asiatic  Dialects,  Central,  495. 

Bashmuric,  430. 

Basque,  489. 

Biscayan,  489. 

Bohemian,  467,  468,  477,  478,  488. 

Catalan,  496. 

Catholic,  478  ff.,  488,  499. 

Celtic,  489. 

Central  Asiatic  Dialects,  495. 

Chinese,  492,  495. 

Coptic,  430,  491. 

Creolese,  492. 

Croatian,  489. 

Dahn.atian,  489. 

Danish,  467,  472,  485,  487,  497. 

Dutch,  467,  468,  472,  478,  485,  487. 

East  Indian  Languages,  492,  495. 

Egyptian,  430. 

English,  467,  475,  478,  485,  487,  488, 
41)7,  498. 

Esthonian,  489. 

Ethiopic,  431. 

Finnish,  489,  496. 

Flemish,  488. 

French,  465  f..  468,  473  f.,  480,  486, 
488,  497,  498,  499. 

Gaelic,  489. 

German,  463  f.,  469,  472,  479,  483, 
487,  488,  497,  498,  499. 

German,  Luther,  470  ff.,  483  f. 

Georgian,  433,  491. 

Gothic,  444  f. 

Greenlandic,  492. 

Harclean  (S.yriac),  428. 

Hebrew,  493. 

Hindustani,  492. 

History  of,  421  ff. 

Icelandic,  472,  485. 

Illyrian,  496. 

Msh,  489. 

Itala  (Latin),  452. 

Italian,  407,  408,  476,  478,  483. 

Jansenist,  488. 

Jerusalem  (Syriac),  429. 

Karkaphentian  (Svriac),  427. 

Laplandic,  489,  49"6. 

Latin,  449  ff. 

Latin,  Itala,  452. 

Latin,  Pre-Jeromic,  453. 

Latin,  Vulgate,  454  ff.,  481  f. 


Versions,  Lettish,  489. 

Lithuanian,  489. 

Low  German,  472. 

Lusitanian,  489. 

Magvar,  467,  489. 

Malayan,  492. 

Maltese,  489. 

Manx,  489. 

Memphitic,  430. 

Modern,  460  ff. 

Modern  Greek,  490,  496. 

Moldavian,  496. 

North  American  Dialects,  495. 

Oriental,  426  ff. 

Persian,  441,  495. 

Peshito  (Syriac),  308,  326,  427. 

Philoxenian  (Syriac),  428. 

Piedmontese,  496. 

Polish,  467,  477,  478. 

Polynesian  Dialects,  495. 

Portuguese,  476,  488. 

Pre-Jeromic  Latin,  453. 

RhjEto-Romance,  489. 

Russian,  490,  490. 

Sahidic,  430. 

Singhalese,  492. 

Slavic,  440  f.,  477,  489,  496. 

South  American  Dialects,  495. 

Spanish,  407  f.,  476,  488. 

Swedish,  472,  485,  487. 

Swiss,  472,  485. 

Syriac,  426  ff.,  491. 

Syriac,  Harclean,  428. 

Syriac,  Jerusalem,  429. 

Syriac,  Karkaphentian,  427. 

Syriac,  Peshito,  308,  326,  427. 

Svriac,  Philoxenian,  428. 

Tamil.  492. 

Tatar,'  495. 

Thebaic,  430. 

Turkish,  492,  495. 

Vulgate,  4,54  ff.,  481  f. 

Vulgate,  Clementine,  482. 

Vulgate,  Sixtine,  482. 

Waldensian   465,  496. 

Wallachian,  489. 

Welsh,  489. 

Wendish,  489. 

Windish,  489. 
Victor  of  Antioch,  531. 
Victorinus,  313. 
Vignoles,  A.  des,  566. 
Vincent  of  Lerinum,  515. 
Visitation,  Tours  of,  38. 
Vitalis  a  Furno,  535. 
Vitringa,  C,  557,  561,  566. 
Vives,  L.,  331. 
Voltaire,  575. 
Von  Ccilln,  D.,  593. 
Von  Holbach,  575. 
Voorst,  J.  van,  597. 
Vulgate,  454  ff.,  481  f. 

Waeven,  J.  v.  d.,  557. 
Wiihlier,  A.  G.,  566. 
Wak-eus,  B.,  568. 
Walafrid  Strabus  (Strabo),  529. 
Walch,  J.  G.,  560. 
Waldenses,  330,  465. 


INDEX. 


639 


Waldensian  Version,  465,  496. 
Wallachian  Version,  489. 
Walton,  Brian,  17,  407. 
Warnefried,  Paulas,  528. 
Wecklein,  M.,  595. 
Wegscheider,  A.,  346,  580. 
Weigenmever,  J.  L.  F.,  584. 
Weiss,  A.  E.,  589. 
Wells,  E.,  409. 
Welsh  Version,  489. 
Wendish  Version,  489. 
Werenfels,  S.,  568. 
Wertheim  Bible,  487. 
Westcott  and  Hort,  419. 
Wetstein,  J.  J.,  408,  5G3. 
Whiston,  W.,  341,  409. 
Whitaker,  W.,  340. 
White,  Jos.,  419. 
Wiclif,  J.,  467,  541. 
Wiedenfeld,  C.  W.,  588. 
Wilke,  C.  G.,  592. 
Wille,  561. 
Willirain,  463. 
Winckelmann,  J.,  555. 
Windischmann,  F.,  595. 
Windish  Version,  489. 
Winer,  G.  B.,  47,  592. 
Winterberg,  F.  S.,  572. 


Witse,  H.,  557,  566. 
Woken,  F.,  554. 
Wolfenblittel  Fragments,  575. 
Woltian  Philosophy,  570. 
Wolf,  J.  C,  567. 
Wolle,  C,  570. 
Wollzogen,  J.  L.  v.,  556. 
Woolston,  Th.,  575. 
Wordsworth,  C,  419. 
Wiinsch,  C.  E.,  575. 
WUrtemberg  Confession,  335. 

Ximenes,  Cardinal,  399. 

Yarchi,  539, 

Zabians,  222. 
Zachariffi,  G.  T.,  581. 
Zacharias  of  Goldborough,  535. 
Zeger,  N.,  551. 
Zehender,  J.  J.,  561. 
Zigabenus,  Enthvniius,  531. 
Zinzendorf,  487,^559. 
Zonaras,  J.,  530. 
Ziillig,  F.  J.,  578. 
Ziirich  Version,  472,  485. 
Zwingli,  335,  549. 


TWO  IMPORTANT  BOOKS. 


Smith's  Bible  Dictionary. 

Comprising  its  Antiquities,  Biography,  Geography,  and  Nat- 
ural History.     By  William  Smith.     Edited  by  Professors 
Horatio  Balch  Hackett  and  Ezra  Abbot,  LL.  D.     In 
five  volumes,  8vo,  3667  pages,  with  596  illustrations.     Cloth, 
beveled  edges,  strongly  bound,  ^20.00  ;  full  sheep,  $25.00; 
half  morocco,  $30.00  ;  half  calf,  extra,  $30.00 ;  half  russia, 
$35.00  ;  full  morocco,  gilt,  $40.00  ;  tree  calf,  $45.00. 
There  are  several  American  editions  of  SmitJis  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible,  but  this  edition  comprises  not  only  the  contents  of 
the  original  English  edition,  unabridged,  but  very  considerable 
and  important  additions  by  the  editors,  Professors  Hackett  and 
Abbot,  and  twenty-six  other  eminent  American  scholars. 

This  edition  has  500  more  pages  than  the  English  and  100 
more  illustrations  ;  more  than  a  thousand  errors  of  reference 
in  the  English  edition  are  corrected  in  this  ;  and  an  Index  of 
Scripture  Passages  Illustrated  is  added. 

No  similar  work  in  our  own  or  in  any  other  language  is  for  a  moment 
to  be  compared  with  it.  —  Quarterly  Review  (London). 


General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and 

Church. 

Translated  from  the  German  of  J.  A.  W.  Neander  by  Rev. 
Joseph  Torrey,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Vermont. 
With  an  Index  volume.  The  set,  with  Index,  6  vols.,  $20.00. 
Index  volume  separate,  $3.00. 

"Neander's  Church  History"  is  one  of  the  most  profound,  carefully 
considered,  deeply  philosophized,  candid,  truly  liberal,  and  independent 
historical  works  that  have  ever  been  written.  In  all  these  respects  it 
stands  head  and  shoulders  above  almost  any  other  church  history  in  ex- 
istence. .  .  .  Professor  Torrey  has  executed  admirably  his  part  of  the 
task  ;  and  I  can  say  of  his  translation  (what  I  can  say  about  no  other  that 
I  have  ever  seen),  I  now  use  the  translation  constantly  in  preference  to 
the  original.  —  Professor  Calvin  E.  Stowe,  Andover,  Mass. 

The  present  index  includes  not  only  the  general  contents  of  the  vol- 
umes, but  an  analytical  list  of  the  citations  from  Christian  and  pagan 
authors  found  in  the  notes,  as  well  as  the  citations  from  Scripture  scat- 
tered through  the  work.  ...  It  is  a  noble  work,  and  ought  to  receive  the 
patronage  it  merits.  —  Christian  Advocate  (New  York). 


VALUABLE  RELIGIOUS  BOOKS 

Selected  frojii  ihe  Publications  of 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY. 


The  Andover  Review. 

A  new  Religious  and  Theological  Review,  under  the  editorial 
control  of  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  William  J.  Tucker,  J.  W. 
Churchill,  George  Harris,  Edward  Y.  Hincks,  Profes- 
sors in  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass., 
and  with  the  cooperation  and  active  support  of  their  col- 
leagues in  the  Faculty,  —  Professors  John  P.  Gulliver, 
John  P.  Taylor,  Geo.  F,  Moore,  and  Frank  E.  Wood- 
ruff. The  first  number  of  the  Review  appeared  in  Janu- 
ary, 1884.  Published  monthly.  Terms,  ^3.00 a  year;  single 
copies,  30  cents. 

The  Andover  Review,  theologically,  advocates  the  prin- 
ciples and  represents  the  method  and  spirit  of  progressive 
Orthodoxy. 

James  Freeman  Clarke. 

Ten  Great  Religions.  An  Essay  in  Comparative  Theology. 
With  an  Index.     8vo,  1^3.00  ;  half  calf,  ^5.00. 

Ten  Great  Religions.  Part  II,  A  Comparison  of  all  Re- 
ligions.    8vo,  ^3.00  ;  half  calf,  ^5.00. 

Common-Sense  in  Religion.  A  Series  of  Essays.  i2mo, 
j^2.oo. 

Joseph  Cook. 

Biology.     With  Preludes  on  Current  Events.     Illustrated. 
Transcendentalism.     With  Preludes  on  Current  Events. 
Orthodoxy.     With  Preludes  on  Current  Events. 
Conscience.     With  Preludes  on  Current  Events. 
Heredity.     With  Preludes  on  Current  Events. 
Marriage.     With  Preludes  on  Current  Events. 
Occident.  With  Preludes  on  Current  Events.     (A  new  vol- 
ume.) 

Orient.  With  Preludes  on  Current  Events.  (A  new  volume.) 
{In  Press). 

Each  volume  i2mo,  ^1.50. 


Rev.  M.  Creighton. 

History  of  the  Papacy  during  the  Period  of  the  Refor- 
mation. Vol.  I.  The  Great  Schism  —  The  Council  of  Con- 
stance, 1378-1418.  Vol,  II.  The  Council  of  Basel  — The 
Papal  Restoration,  1418-1464.     2  vols.  Svo,  ^10.00. 

Professor  J.  L.  Diman. 

The  Theistic  Argument  as  Affected  by  Recent  Theories. 

Edited  by  Professor  George  P.  Fisher.     Crown  Svo,  ;^2.00. 
Orations  and  Essays,  with  Selected  Parish  Sermons.     A 

Memorial  Volume,  with  a  portrait,     Svo,  gilt  top,  ^2.50. 

Washington  Gladden. 

The  Lord's  Prayer.  Seven  Essays  on  the  Meaning  and 
Spirit  of  this  universal  Prayer.     i6mo,  gilt  top,  ^1,00. 

Thomas  Hughes. 

The  Manliness  of  Christ.  i6mo,  gilt  top,  ^i.oo;  paper 
covers,  25  cents. 

Samuel  Johnson. 

Oriental  Religions,  and  their  Relation  to  Universal 
Religion. 

India.     Svo,  802  pages,  ^5.00;  half  calf,  ^S.oo. 

China.     Svo,  iooo  pages,  i^S.oo ;  half  calf,  ^S.oo. 

Persia.     Svo,  ^5.00. 

Lectures,  Essays,  and  Sermons.  With  a  portrait  and  Mem- 
oir by  Rev.  Samuel  Longfellow.     Crown  Svo,  gilt  top, 

Henry  C.  Lea. 

Sacerdotal  Celibacy  in  the  Christian  Church,  Second 
Edition,  considerably  enlarged.     Svo,  ^4.50. 

Rev.  T.  Mozley. 

Reminiscences,  chiefly  of  Oriel  College  and  the  Oxford  Move- 
ment.    2  vols.  i6mo,  ^3.00  ;  half  calf,  $6,00. 

Elisha  Mulford,  LL.  D. 

The  Republic  of  God,     Svo,  ^2.00, 

We  do  not  remember  that  this  country  has  lately  produced  a  speculative 
work  of  more  originality  and  force,  .  .  .  The  book  is  a  noble  one.  —  The 
Critic  (New  York), 


Rev.  T.  T.  Munger. 

On  the  Threshold.  Familiar  Lectures  to  Young  People 
on  Purpose,  Friends,  and  Companions,  Manners,  Thrift, 
Self-Reliance  and  Courage,  Health,  Reading  and  Intellec- 
tual Life,  Amusements,  and  Faith.     i6mo,  gilt  top,  ^i.oo. 

The  Freedom  of  Faith.  Sermons,  prefaced  by  an  Essay  on 
the  New  Theology.     i6mo,  gilt  top,  ^1.50. 

George  Putnam,  D.  D. 

Sermons  by  George  Putnam,  D,  D.,  late  Pastor  of  the 
First  Religious  Society  in  Roxbury,  Massachusetts.  With 
fine  steel  portrait.     i6mo,  gilt  top,  ^1.75. 

Edward  Robinson,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  in  Greek.     8vo,  ^1.50. 
The  Same,  in  English,  i2mo,  75  cents. 

Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine.  3  vols.  8vo,  with  maps, 
^10.00.     Price  of  the  maps  alone,  ^i.oo. 

Physical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land.  A  Supplement 
to  "  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine."     8vo,  ^3.50. 

Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  old  Testament, 
including  the  Biblical  Chaldee.  From  the  Latin  of  Wil- 
liam Gesenius,  by  Edward  Robinson.  Twenty-second 
Edition.     8vo,  half  russia,  ^6.00. 

English-Hebrew  Lexicon  :  Being  a  complete  Verbal  Index 
to  Genesius'  Hebrew  Lexicon  as  translated  by  Robinson. 
By  Joseph  Lewis  Potter,  A.  M.     8vo,  ^2.00. 

Rev.  Thomas  Scott. 

The  Bible,  with  Explanatory  Notes,  Practical  Obser- 
vations, AND  Copious  Marginal  References.  By  Rev. 
Thomas  Scott.     6  vols,  royal  8vo,  sheep,  ^15.00. 

***  For  sale  by  all  Booksellers.     Sent  by  mail,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price  by 
the  Publishers, 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY, 
4  Park  Street,  Boston;  ii  East  Seventeenth  Street,  New  York. 


Date  Due 

^""i   'W 

■    ''         .                   ^h 

.,  ^^.fl  X 

-^'M. 

r      .>,^ 

~'^27-^^\ 

*«■ 

ffl/lp  ff    >ir 

f 

, 

jim-r 

S^'W^O 

1 ,, 

' 

■'/-?■•■* 

! 

i; 

"'          ,    •           ,    ; 

\                    f) 

